# So much gotten wrong, I can't even process it.



## Fozzy

The Night I Gave My Husband a Free Pass - Scary Mommy

It makes me wonder how common this mindset is, and how much damage is being done to people who read this kind of thing.

Thoughts?


----------



## SimplyAmorous

I'd be absolutely crushed if my husband talked to me like this.. I also know if I dared act like this wife.. he'd never touch me again...it's the height of rejection.. 

I feel the same as the 2nd poster under the article ...



> Your husband may have rejected this notion now, but make no mistake.. You have planted a seed that could destroy your marriage. Making love is a core component of a healthy marriage. It shouldn't be marginalized or minimized. Your husband needs the physical act of love to feel fufilled.
> 
> Having a relationship where you function as roommates in a business partnership will breed resentment over time. Once you go to sleep he will be off master bating to Internet porn several times a week. Then an attractive woman at work will pay him attention. It will unearth feelings he hasn't had in years. He will yearn for that again. Not just sex, but passion and desire. Why not just a taste? You said it was okay after all?
> 
> Don't be so foolish to think the situation is really okay as it is. A marriage with mismatched libidos needs to be worked on just as much as anything. It isn't magically going to come back and be okay someday. It takes work. And better to work on it now than when an affair destroys an otherwise picture perfect relationship.


----------



## MountainRunner

My wife told me to take a mistress after D-Day. My response was almost identical to her husband's response. I told her that if I wanted to just find a woman to ****, I could go to an escort as it is not what I want...that I need to feel an emotional connection and I feel that with her, that I want her. Oddly enough, it took my EA to realize that my wife was telling the truth that her libido had completely disappeared. You see, when she told me that she simply has lost her sex drive, I heard...

"I am no longer attracted to you sexually anymore."...And nothing could have been further from the truth. Additionally, I "think" it opened up her eyes as well because it was shortly after D-Day that she said she wanted to get her hormone levels checked and possibly go on HRT.

The rest is history and the two of us are doing great.


----------



## Kitt

Officially depressed....


----------



## morituri

The author doesn't realize that by not taking this seriously, her husband will slowly lose whatever sexual desire he has for her and if and when her sexual desire does return, it will be her turn to bear the sexless marriage cross. If that happens, then she'll be singing and writing a different tune and article.

She has also helped to create a viable environment for an extra marital affair and not one based solely on sex but on love as well, an exit affair. And as much as this would be morally wrong and vile act of betrayal for her husband to commit, it is something that wouldn't come as a great shock to people privy to her situation.

Lastly, though the number of walk away husbands may nowhere be near that of the walk away wives, they do exist. He may just wait until the children turn 18 and then jettison from the marriage. If that happens, then all her dreams of growing old together will turn to dust. Any regrets she may have then will come in too little too late to do any good.

Love and sex may be different animals, but for a married couple that started as lovers, the demise of one spells the demise of the other as well.


----------



## RandomDude

These such situations I can relate to both the husband and the wife, I agree that sex is important in a relationship but I also agree that it shouldn't be forced/duty/whatever.

I have noticed in alot of sexless marriages people are encouraged to put up routines, scheduled sex sessions and what not, personally for me that would destroy my desire with all the "duties" as it did in my marriage. With the right flirting, teasing, and anticipation it was great, but when it's scheduled, routine duty sex it felt sick but I did it anyway lest ex-wife chucked a fit.

I don't encourage duty sex - now sure it works well for several marriages to relight the fire but for me it will douse it - and it did.


----------



## EVG39

Talk about cringe worthy. That dinner conversation had to be soul crushing for her husband. In her new view sex is something for him, a hobby like fly-fishing or building ships in a bottle. Its not an important part of marriage. But since her seemingly low libido is not due to a medical problem, the 300 pound gorilla in the room that neither he nor she can wrap their mind around is that she has simply lost her attraction for her husband. And it is probably the scenario we see here all the time. Wife begins to grows cold, husband tries to please wife by cooking, doing the laundry, etc and by otherwise being her supplicant. For weeks, months and even years. Then what little attraction wife had finally exits stage left. Result sexless marriage. And this is what is so hard for men to grasp, that this behavior which seems so logical to them is the very behavior that that just kills a woman's love and respect for him. I suspect if the right man comes along, this woman would rediscover her desire. Her husband needs to be that guy. He was once, he could be again. But he begins by shutting down this kind of foolishness on her part. Or walking out the door. One or the other.


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening
I think it depends on the people. There are some for whom an open marriage works - I think it is a small minority though.

Its tough though, when one person just doesn't want sex, the relationship is is dire trouble.


----------



## bandit.45

Check out the 69 comments. Most of those comments agree with us. She's got some serious hangups.


----------



## Ripper

That guy's resentment will be able to power a metropolitan area in a few years. At least she was upfront and honest, he knows now and its his fault if he continues to sacrifice his well-being to feed a faux marriage. 

He needs to get a favorable postnup in place and start concentrating on what will make him happy. 

Some people call it manipulation, but I wager if he started running a solid "dread game" on her with a fair postnup in place her tune would change. 

Couple of similar situations from Reddit.
https://archive.is/pyYTz
https://archive.is/h7K5H

Her giving him a free pass was just a way for her to deflect him in the future. She's confident he won't take her up on it, but she will use it anytime he complains about the situation. She full intends for him to heel and wait for the scraps from her table like a good little dog. Chances are, he will.


----------



## Ripper

Bugged said:


> let's turn another 3d into a discussion about PUA/red pill crap...oh yeah..let's go.


You got a solution other than the guy just dealing with? Or are you just here to be offended and complain about the terminology?

I posted a couple of examples of it working (if they are to be believed). I would gladly accept alternatives if you have them.


----------



## EllisRedding

Wow ... my favorite comment:



> see!! I'm not alone!! been through the marriage counseling and everything too!! going to forward this to my husband! he just doesn't get that after having kids on me all day long I'm sorry if I just want to have time for myself where NO one is on me or touching me! it does not mean I'm repulsed by you or don't love you, I just want my space sometimes!
> 
> love, love, love this post! thank you


Umm ... so yeah, NOW your husband will understand after he reads this article lol.


----------



## ocotillo

The most perplexing part of the article (For me, anyway..) was the closing sentence:



> However, when that all changes, my husband will be ready when I am, with his free pass in hand – for *me.*


----------



## EllisRedding

ocotillo said:


> The most perplexing part of the article (For me, anyway..) was the closing sentence:


Basically, she doesn't care what he thinks, what he needs, or how he feels. It is all about her, and that statement sums it up perfectly ... Also, what it means, if he does not shake things up, nothing will change, she will just continue to find excuses as the kids get older. Then again, why should she change if he is just going to run around with his tail b/w his legs their entire marriage.


----------



## naiveonedave

Bugged said:


> Do you honestly think that most women would start to put out if their husband stopped TALKING to them, or saying 10 words, and kept ignoring them for months?
> I don't.
> My opinion about sexual mismatch is very negative I'm afraid. My solution was to move out. Too much pressure.
> I honestly think in 90% of these cases there's no solution.


well mmslp does work, at least it did for me. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it won't work. It probably would even work on you, LOL


----------



## Marduk

When I read this, all I heard is a weak, whiny, depressed wife.

Apologies to the author... but if my wife said this to me, I'd be gone like the wind. 



> I wish the psychologists and sexperts of the world would stop feeding me lines about how to get my marriage back on track after a baby – with these X number of simple steps. Or how to get my body back. How to get my job back.
> 
> I'll never get any of those things back. I am not the same person. Growing and raising a human changes you deeply and permanently.
> 
> My body will never come back. My brain will never return to its pre-baby state. And I definitely don't want my old job back.
> 
> My marriage will never be on the same track. My marriage track has been severed and re-bonded by a baby. We're on a new track.


Translation = "I got everything in my life I wanted, and now I'm pooped out, so I'm just going to go take a nap for 5 years."


----------



## Ripper

Bugged said:


> Do you honestly think that most women would start to put out if their husband stopped TALKING to them, or saying 10 words, and kept ignoring them for months?
> I don't.
> My opinion about sexual mismatch is very negative I'm afraid. My solution was to move out. Too much pressure.
> I honestly think in 90% of these cases there's no solution.


Its worked for some people. That is all I'm saying. If the only other option is divorce, wouldn't it be worth trying?


----------



## Fozzy

My take on it was that he made her aware that his "love language" involved a strong sexual relationship, and she responded that he go get sex somewhere else BUT be sure not to fall in love.

So go get a primary component of your emotional needs met by another woman, but be sure not to actually feel any emotions when you do. (good luck)

And then when I decide that I'm ready to start having sex again, be thrilled about it and come satisfy my needs at that point. Hunky-Dory.


----------



## Marduk

Fozzy said:


> My take on it was that he made her aware that his "love language" involved a strong sexual relationship, and she responded that he go get sex somewhere else BUT be sure not to fall in love.
> 
> So go get a primary component of your emotional needs met by another woman, but be sure not to actually feel any emotions when you do. (good luck)
> 
> And then when I decide that I'm ready to start having sex again, be thrilled about it and come satisfy my needs at that point. Hunky-Dory.


Translation:

"I'm selfish and lazy."

Or:

"Don't make me work to make you happy, but be there for me when I want you to be."


----------



## soccermom2three

Well, she has it all figured out doesn't she? (Not!)


----------



## WorkingWife

It sounds like she doesn't respect and value her husband, herself, or her marriage.


----------



## naiveonedave

Bugged said:


> Really?
> Let me give you some details.
> My partner is 6'3'', he got into Krav Maga,very fit now and he has a lot of muscles because he wrestles..he does whatever he wants because I trust him and don't control him in any way...he goes playing soccer comes home at 1 am sometimes drinking with his buddies...he's more attractive that I am, Dark hair, green eyes..has women hit on him all the time even in front of me..9 years younger than me, not clingy, not needy...
> 
> so exactly what would be supposed to work according to AK..the 'dread part'? If I wasn't sure of his feelings I would have walked YEARS ago.
> 
> I'm pretty sure it does not work on me.


He doesn't need it, because he already has it. Some men (many if you read any of these forums) need to learn what your H just does.

My guess is if he became what many men are taught to be today, you would lose respect for him.


----------



## EllisRedding

Bugged said:


> Guys, just stop, STOP judging..you don't know how it feels..you haven't been there...just stop thinking you understand the situation!, you can't


Selfish is stating that she basically expects her husband to stick around because for her the definition of their marriage has changed ...


----------



## Fozzy

I don't think she should fake it. It's obvious she doesn't feel that way about him. He'll see right through her anyway if she tries. What I find offensive is that she seems to be convinced that all he needs is a port in the storm and that there's no emotional tie for him. If they can't make it work, fine...divorce. But for her to expect him to just suppress an integral part of his character for an indeterminate number of years on the off-hand chance that she might some day change her mind? Come on. 

I don't judge anyone for not having a sex drive. But callous disregard for your partner's emotions are a different matter, and that's what I see here.


----------



## EllisRedding

And let's be honest, the whole "free pass" is a load of bs. Most likely she knows her husband is not the type of guy who would ever cheat (heck, her last sentence she even said she expects him to use the free pass ... on her). By offering the free pass to him, now whenever he complains to her she can just throw it in his face, how she gave him an out and he didn't take advantage of it. It is nothing more than to make her feel better about herself (she is doing it for him after all) and to manipulate the situation.


----------



## Fozzy

I stuck it out for a long time while my marriage was sexless. Even when it hurt to do so, I did it because I never doubted my wife loved me. If she'd said something to me like this, I'd have packed my bags the same night.


----------



## ocotillo

Bugged said:


> Guys, just stop, STOP judging..you don't know how it feels..you haven't been there...just stop thinking you understand the situation!, you can't


What specifically can't we understand? Loss of libido?


----------



## Marduk

Bugged said:


> Guys, just stop, STOP judging..you don't know how it feels..you haven't been there...just stop thinking you understand the situation!, you can't


Ya, because it's easy to become a dad, struggle to drive your career ahead, come home and help out with the kids and the house, stay in shape to be attractive to the wife, schedule date nights, and think of ways to keep her happy in the sack... and try to get a solid 5 hours of sleep a night.

And it's not tempting to say "**** it" and go and throw doctor who on the tv, open a costco size bag of doritos, drink a six pack of beer, and get fat and lazy instead.

Because, you know, _life is hard._

Queue the worlds smallest violin.


----------



## Marduk

EllisRedding said:


> And let's be honest, the whole "free pass" is a load of bs. Most likely she knows her husband is not the type of guy who would ever cheat (heck, her last sentence she even said she expects him to use the free pass ... on her). By offering the free pass to him, now whenever he complains to her she can just throw it in his face, how she gave him an out and he didn't take advantage of it. It is nothing more than to make her feel better about herself (she is doing it for him after all) and to manipulate the situation.


It would have been really funny if he would have gotten a big smirk on his face, said "Whew, that's a relief!" and grabbed his coat and ran out the door.

And came home exhausted at 3am, gave her a peck on the cheek, and said goodnight.


----------



## EllisRedding

marduk said:


> It would have been really funny if he would have gotten a big smirk on his face, said "Whew, that's a relief!" and grabbed his coat and ran out the door.
> 
> And came home exhausted at 3am, gave her a peck on the cheek, and said goodnight.


Haha, that would indeed be priceless.


----------



## ocotillo

soccermom2three said:


> Well, she has it all figured out doesn't she? (Not!)


Well her Facebook account is, Missguided Mama...... Honest at least.


----------



## ocotillo

Lila said:


> I don't agree with the author offering her husband a hall pass but I can empathize with her situation.


Five minutes on her Facebook wall and my empathy evaporated. She doesn't seem terribly enamored with the two children either.


----------



## EllisRedding

Lila said:


> The author may have expressed herself very bluntly on her blog and may have made a huge faux pas suggesting a hall pass to her husband, but the pressure and fallout from the descriptions of the stressors of becoming a mother are very real.


My issue is that she seems to have accepted that this is the way it is, her husband just has to accept it as well. I can understand where she is coming from as my wife and I were just dealing with similar (not as bad) in terms of Mommy mode. We sat down, decided this is not the way things needed to go for our marriage to continue working, and we BOTH made the necessary changes. Maybe she has had this talk with her husband and just didn't convey it in the article. However, the article reads that she has changed, this is how she is now, so deal with it.

And as I mentioned earlier, the free pass statement was just bs on her part to hold it over him.


----------



## EllisRedding

Lila said:


> I can only speak for my experience but after my son's birth I quickly realized that my life was forever changed and it would never go back to the carefree days pre-motherhood. It was what it was. I would never be a size 4 again, the scars as a result of his birth would never go away barring cosmetic surgery, and my brain function would always be slower than it was pre-baby. I was always going to have my child's wellbeing in the back on my mind and for a time it would be my #1 focus.
> 
> I accepted that my libido was lost somewhere in the process but was told it would come back. Did my husband have to accept it? No, but if he wanted the benefits of having a family with _me_, he was going to have to accept my physical changes and adjust his expectations regarding sex due to the loss of my libido.
> 
> There's a season for everything in life. That was the season for high stress, lack of sleep, and low libido. We sailed through it having learned more about each other. Will the author of the blog do as well as we did? I'm not sure but she did a hell of job describing what many of us go through.


Don't get me wrong, like I said, I can in some respects understand where she is coming from. This is something I was very understanding with my wife as we worked through. Maybe I read her article a little different being on the other side of it. To me it reads as of now until who knows when her marriage and her husband are bottom of the list. She knows that it is an issue for him, so the logical thing is to tell him to go *** someone else (oh but if you do, make sure it is nothing but unemotional). That is in part what many are responding to, and that is where to me a lot of the stuff she said loses all value. Who said any of this was supposed to be easy??? Having kids is not an excuse to stop working on your marriage. If she honestly believes he should go out and *** someone else, then do the right thing, get a divorce, and let him be free to *** whomever without any conditions.


----------



## Marduk

ocotillo said:


> Five minutes on her Facebook wall and my empathy evaporated. She doesn't seem terribly enamored with the two children either.


I have to say my shock factor at this is pretty much zero.

Listen, for all those men and women in relationships, especially with kids, who try and struggle, you have my empathy and my support if I can give it. 

For those that discover that life is hard, and decide to give up even though it makes life for those that depend on you ****ty, you have nothing but my apathy.

For those that make giving up a lifestyle and advocate it for others, you have my contempt. You are not quite the worst kind of person, but I'm sure you can see Sarah Palin's house from where you're standing.


----------



## Marduk

Lila said:


> There's a season for everything in life. That was the season for high stress, lack of sleep, and low libido. We sailed through it having learned more about each other. Will the author of the blog do as well as we did? I'm not sure but she did a hell of job describing what many of us go through.


I get it.

And yet, I haven't read a single post of yours that ever advocated throwing in the towel and letting yourself give up. You better than most know how hard life is, and yet you've never posted anything ever approaching this blog post about yourself.

Or to anyone else. 

Move on or forward, sure. But give up because life is hard?

Never.


----------



## Fozzy

Lila said:


> I agree with you that suggesting top her husband that he should see other women for sex is ridiculous.
> 
> I also agree that if she feels this is the new norm, she should be honest with her H and give him the option to divorce.


Or at the very least be prepared when he bolts for the door the moment their precious angels turn 18.


----------



## Fozzy

I think everyone understands (or should) that kids change everything. It changes life for men too, albeit more on the mental/emotional side. What I'm not seeing in this article is any hint that she gives a flying monkey's butt about his emotional well-being. 

What I'm not seeing is where she says to her husband "Look, I don't have a sex drive right now, but I still love you and here's what we're going to do to work through this with as positive an outcome as possible".

What I AM seeing is "stay the fck away from me, but do my bidding. Go fck someone else, but love only me. Take your emotional needs and stuff them, but be ready to tend to mine when and if I ever perchance have them again."

Telling him to go find another woman to sleep with isn't just crass. It isn't a faux-pas. It's one of the single most damaging and disrespectful things you can say to your spouse in the context of a monogamous marriage.


----------



## Marduk

I get her feelings of struggle and inadequacy. 

I struggle myself with it. 

Just like I struggle with thinking she is anything more than a particularly eloquent purile self-centred woman that has just made it ok for a bunch of other woman to feel bad for themselves, curl up under a comfy blanket on the couch watching sex and the city and eating Haagen daas, congratulating themselves for being weak. 

And all their spouses and children get what?

Nothing, that's what. 

You can empathize with her Lila because you have been there, felt her struggle, and are a good person. 

You could never be her, because you are also a strong person. And thank the gods for that.

http://youtu.be/t0D4ekTODuA
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## ocotillo

Lila said:


> I can see why many of the female posters agreed with her thoughts on that blog. @ocotillo mentioned her facebook page, which I haven't visited, but taking that blog entry at face value, her situation is common with many mothers of young children.


I'll give you an example from her blog:



> "The constant contact with my kids during the sunny season, makes my soul gloomy and stormy. And we're only on week two of summer vacation."


To be fair, you might want to read the whole article for context, but statements like that strike me as slightly amiss.

Here's a pretty typical example of what gets posted on the Facebook page.


----------



## morituri

Her offer of a free hall pass is as stupid as that made by some sex freak husbands request to their wives to have sex with another man but not fall in love with him. Eventually they take their husbands offer and when things get out of hand, the husbands find that their wives prefer to be with the OM instead and end up losing their wives.

This woman may have just opened Pandora's box and may rue the day she offered this to her husband. He now knows that his wife doesn't love him and that is something he is not likely to forget. If he gets to the point of actually taking the hall pass, he just might end up wanting to be with the OW for good. Let's see how "empowered" she'll feel then and write a follow up article titled "I gave my husband a free hall pass and now he's left me for the OW".


----------



## EllisRedding

Lila said:


> Here's the thing though, aside from this woman's very stupid suggestion to give her husband a hall pass, I can see why many of the female posters agreed with her thoughts on that blog. @ocotillo mentioned her facebook page, which I haven't visited, but taking that blog entry at face value, her situation is common with many mothers of young children. Her description of motherhood and faking it hit close to home. The visible changes to one's person and their feelings towards their marriage can be 180 degrees one day to the next. I 100% agree that women become a whole new person after having a child. It can be overwhelming to some. It was to me.


I can say when I read her blog post I thought of my wife immediately b/c many things she described is also what my wife dealt with. I remember coming home and my wife saying that she had enough of the kids all over her and just didn't want to be touched (but even this wasn't directed at me, moreso she just needed to be away from the kids). The problem with her blog though, knowing that many women can probably relate to what she is feeling as a mother, she makes it seem quite acceptable to then react the way she is towards her H. Fozzy said it perfectly, she comes off as cold and not giving two craps about her husband. The whole free pass thing is just to shut him up, it's cold and calculated. Although there is this perception it seems like that guys are just hornballs who will bang anything for the pure physical pleasure, guys in relationships (at least just speaking solely about myself) rely on sex as a way to build/maintain/strengthen the emotional connection with their SO. *What she is saying with the free pass is basically she could give two craps about his emotional well being when it comes to their marriage, so go fvk someone else BUT don't get your emotional needs from her either. I mean, wtf kind of person says this*

I am still looking for the part in the blog where she talks about possible solutions or ideas on how to fix it. Instead, she offers her readers, many of whom can relate to her, zero options except this is who you are now, accept it, your husband will have to learn to deal. Completely irresponsible. 

I always wonder though how much of these blogs are in fact factual. After all, just by adding in the whole "Free pass" statement, she immediately increased the number of views her page would get. It is similar to another article I had read about a woman where she talked about how awesome her husband was, best husband ever, and then went on to say she has zero time for him, not even for lunch, because she is a mom and that mattered more. It was cold to the point where you almost felt it had to have been made up for the purpose of getting more views.


----------



## Wazza

The blog clearly states something that resonates with a lot of women. It doesn't mess around, or bury the issue in tact. To that extent it's a positive thing. It does say to women who struggle with this that they are not alone.

That said, what do you do about it. The husband and wife both have a right to their needs and desires, but it's a critical juncture in things. Depending how the issue is handled it could be very positive or very negative for the future.

So women, short of becoming sexless, what can us guys do to support you as you go through this? 

And what about priorities? The blogger puts a lot of things before the husband....kids (I can get that), career (that one is a grey area in my view....not sure a couple who sacrifice their marriage to their careers are being uber smart), travel (totally lost me with that one.) 

I don't think there are any perfect solutions, but what else could we do to at least improve things?


----------



## Fozzy

Wazza said:


> The blog clearly states something that resonates with a lot of women. It doesn't mess around, or bury the issue in tact. To that extent it's a positive thing. It does say to women who struggle with this that they are not alone.
> 
> That said, what do you do about it. The husband and wife both have a right to their needs and desires, but it's a critical juncture in things. Depending how the issue is handled it could be very positive or very negative for the future.
> 
> So women, short of becoming sexless, what can us guys do to support you as you go through this?
> 
> And what about priorities? The blogger puts a lot of things before the husband....kids (I can get that), career (that one is a grey area in my view....not sure a couple who sacrifice their marriage to their careers are being uber smart), travel (totally lost me with that one.)
> 
> I don't think there are any perfect solutions, but what else could we do to at least improve things?


Many (including the author) would say that you can just suck it up and wait it out. The desire will come back some day. Except sometimes it doesn't. Which according to this author is your problem.


----------



## Fozzy

ocotillo said:


> I'll give you an example from her blog:
> 
> 
> 
> To be fair, you might want to read the whole article for context, but statements like that strike me as slightly amiss.
> 
> Here's a pretty typical example of what gets posted on the Facebook page.


Or in my case, you make an amazing dinner and they still want Lucky Charms anyway.


----------



## EllisRedding

Wazza said:


> So women, short of becoming sexless, what can us guys do to support you as you go through this?
> 
> I don't think there are any perfect solutions, but what else could we do to at least improve things?


The blog author does not want to improve. She even states she can't get down with scheduled date nights ... she is unwilling to make her marriage a priority. As long as it is at the bottom of the list nothing will improve, and he WILL become resentful.

In my case, I spoke with my wife, we discussed what the problems were, what did she need so she felt like she could be a person again and not just a mother. Since we talked, came up with a plan on what was needed so we could focus on being a couple again, things have honestly been the best they have been in a real long time (I guess this whole communication thing can actually work, who would've thought lol). That I believe has to be the starting point of the conversation. Identify the issue(s), come with a plan on how you can resolve or at least lessen the burden. If the marriage is that important to both people they will work (i.e. fight) for their marriage to make it work.


----------



## Wazza

EllisRedding said:


> In my case, I spoke with my wife, we discussed what the problems were, what did she need so she felt like she could be a person again and not just a mother. Since we talked, came up with a plan on what was needed so we could focus on being a couple again, things have honestly been the best they have been in a real long time (I guess this whole communication thing can actually work, who would've thought lol). That I believe has to be the starting point of the conversation. Identify the issue(s), come with a plan on how you can resolve or at least lessen the burden. If the marriage is that important to both people they will work (i.e. fight) for their marriage to make it work.


What sort of things were in your plan.


----------



## OnTheFly

Ugh, grew to dislike her while reading her article, grew to despise her reading her FB. 

If her husband started a thread here describing her and her actions, I'm sure the 'D' word would be suggested by post #2.


----------



## soccermom2three

ocotillo said:


> I'll give you an example from her blog:
> 
> 
> 
> To be fair, you might want to read the whole article for context, but statements like that strike me as slightly amiss.


This is has been a "thing" now for the past few years or so with mommy bloggers. They post horrible things about their kids and husbands and it's supposed to be hilarious or something.


----------



## Fozzy

soccermom2three said:


> This is has been a "thing" now for the past few years or so with mommy bloggers. They post horrible things about their kids and husbands and it's supposed to be hilarious or something.


Must be one of those higher forms of humor that doesn't resonate with me. Like Jerry Lewis.


----------



## ConanHub

Pretty damn pathetic.

I really wonder about what type of man her husband is.

Mrs. Conan has had two sons and taken care of business without more than a slow period of time that lasted maybe a week and a half.

She initiated sex all through her pregnancy and soon after.

This woman is not worthy of her marriage or family.

Some people don't know how good they have it.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Muse1976

Lol. 
This is so sad it funny. 

4 things would put a stop to a large portion of this whole mentality. 


1. A viable men's birth control option other than vasectomy. Hello Vasalgel.
2. Stop having kids if you don't want to put in the effort. 
3. Automatic 50/50 shared child custody. With no option of spousal support. 
Drum roll please. 

4. At fault divorce.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## EllisRedding

Wazza said:


> What sort of things were in your plan.


Well, when my wife and I talked, one big difference b/w the blog author is my wife desperately wanted to get our marriage back. So , she may have been suffering from many of the same symptoms as the author, the complacency or willingness to just accept it was not there. 

With us, the root of my wife's issues was being smothered by our daughter (she is almost 2 now) and not having any time to herself, to think for herself, to be herself. We have two older boys (7 & 5) who are actually well behaved, at school all day, etc... so they weren't as much an issue, but my wife being frustrated with my daughter would eventually carry over to the boys.

First, it was just helpful for us to talk about this. We were both miserable in terms of our marriage and not really heading towards the right path. What we have done now:

- Increased # of days my daughter goes to daycare from 3 to 4 days and 4 to 7 hours. This has probably had the biggest impact on my wife
- I started taking a few vacation days here and there on days where all the kids WERE in school. Normally I would try to line up my vacation days with the kids being off. This gave my wife and I time alone that we sorely needed and have a hard time getting on the weekends b/c options for watching our kids are rather limited.
- With the extra time from daycare, my wife started going back to the gym, taking care of herself, feeling like a woman again and not just a mother
- She has also put more emphasis on eating, and eating well, making herself meals. Too often with the kids she would just grab junkfood or go long periods without eating which wasn't good for her. 
- She is still trying to balance, but she has been better about being able to relax in the house and not treating it as a 24/7 job

One interesting side note from all this, I found out my wife had some resentment towards me over some decisions in the past (i.e. me playing sports) which was news to me b/c when I asked her at the time if she was ok with she gave me the green light ... I had to dig into her on this b/c normally she gives me a hard time (rightly so) about me keeping things in, but that is precisely what she had been doing when I thought all was ok. At the time she said it would impact on certain days her desire to have sex, etc... 

So really we cleared the air, decided to take back control of our marriage, and have been off to the races ever since. It will always be something we need to work on, so doesn't mean now everything will be rosy. We showed though that we can make it work, and we can actually have an awesome relationship while still being parents.

This is why that author's blog post is disgusting. Things got difficult so just basically said fu to her husband, I will let you know when I am ready for you again.


----------



## Fozzy

FrenchFry said:


> It's the opposite end of the Social Media Spectrum
> 
> Sanctimommy<----------------------->Horriblemommy
> 
> Most of us are about here ^ or a little to the left or right.
> 
> Betty Draper has it right though in that pic. Smoke, glass of wine and perfect hair.


Sanctimommy.

I lol'd.


----------



## ocotillo

FrenchFry said:


> I kind of love her now. Because I effing know *EXACTLY* what she is talking about.


It's not that I don't appreciate satire, but I'd have to say that the whole drunken narcissist schtick (If that is indeed what it is..) makes it difficult to take the "Free Pass" article in anything other than the same vein....


----------



## Anon Pink

This blog made me very sad. Sad for my husband and myself because after our first baby I had negative feelings about sex. I wanted nothing to do with sex. For two straight years those rare times we did have sex it was only because I felt guilty about never wanting sex. It was awful and neither of us had a clue about what was happening or what to do.

But not so with the author of this blog.



> I wish the psychologists and sexperts of the world would stop feeding me lines about how to get my marriage back on track after a baby – with these X number of simple steps. Or how to get my body back. How to get my job back.
> 
> I'll never get any of those things back. I am not the same person. Growing and raising a human changes you deeply and permanently.
> 
> My body will never come back. My brain will never return to its pre-baby state. And I definitely don't want my old job back.


Maybe if she actually paid attention to the lines she's being fed things might get better!

Maybe if she learned to have a better body image instead of focusing on a better body..?

Maybe if she stopped trying to be super Mom in control of everything she could relax better?

Maybe if she spent some time hearing her husband's pain instead of just focusing on her own pain?

I look back and sometimes I wonder how the hell my husband put up with me all those years, but other times I wonder how I put up with him, LOL.

If this woman was my daughter, I'd have a LOT to say to her and her husband!


----------



## Anon Pink

FrenchFry said:


> I loled because it's true.



Sure is, but you have to own it.

What's for dinner?

Captncrunch, cocoa puffs, or oatmeal. Clean up when you're done.


----------



## jld

I feel bad for her. It must be hard to have a husband who pressures you for sex when you work and have young kids. Just the thought of combining employment and small kids sounds overwhelming to me.

I think he should inspire her passion. He could take it as a chance to develop his character, to become more empathetic and attractive to her. 

And I do not understand why she would be responsible for a grown man's emotional well being.


----------



## Anon Pink

IDK JLD, looking back at those years after my first...I don't think my H could have done anything at all to inspire my passion. He could have done several things to avoid my resentment, but inspiring passion....not at all likely.

She is just as much responsible for his emotions as he is to her emotions. They are accountable to each other.


----------



## EllisRedding

Anon Pink said:


> IDK JLD, looking back at those years after my first...I don't think my H could have done anything at all to inspire my passion. He could have done several things to avoid my resentment, but inspiring passion....not at all likely.
> 
> *She is just as much responsible for his emotions as he is to her emotions. They are accountable to each other*.


So much agreement here with the bolded... but she made it clear she doesn't want to be responsible for his emotions and she doesn't want him getting emotional support from another woman. 

And exactly as you said, it isn't about inspiring passion, but understanding what she is going through and trying to work TOGETHER is how you get through it.


----------



## jld

Anon Pink said:


> IDK JLD, looking back at those years after my first...I don't think my H could have done anything at all to inspire my passion. He could have done several things to avoid my resentment, but inspiring passion....not at all likely.
> 
> She is just as much responsible for his emotions as he is to her emotions. They are accountable to each other.


For sure, the baby/little kid stage is tough. So many demands on a mother . . . 

The longest we have gone without sex, besides pregnancy, illness or travel, is a week. And when were those times? When we had all babies/little kids. They really can suck the life out of parents!

For myself, I have never felt responsible for Dug's feelings. I am sure he has never held me responsible for them, either. And we have never been sexless. I don't know if there is a correlation or not.

If I had a husband who looked all hurt at the thought of not having sex while I was trying to work and take care of little kids, I would be totally turned off. I would feel like I had another child on my hands. 

But that's just me.


----------



## jld

EllisRedding said:


> So much agreement here with the bolded... but she made it clear she doesn't want to be responsible for his emotions and she doesn't want him getting emotional support from another woman.
> 
> And exactly as you said, it isn't about inspiring passion, but understanding what she is going through and trying to work TOGETHER is how you get through it.


I don't think she gets to set the rules, either. She can have her own limits, but he is going to have his, too. And when a woman does not have sex with her husband, she risks his becoming involved with someone else. Not everyone will agree to celibacy, even temporarily, in marriage.

I think it is _all about _inspiring passion, personally.


----------



## EllisRedding

jld said:


> I don't think she gets to set the rules, either. She can have her own limits, but he is going to have his, too. And when a woman does not have sex with her husband, she risks his becoming involved with someone else. Not everyone will agree to celibacy, even temporarily, in marriage.
> 
> I think it is _all about _inspiring passion, personally.


The issue with sex, at least how it reads in her post, is she threw it in his face by telling him to go fvk someone else. There is nothing constructive about such a response, and as I mentioned before a statement like that is made solely for her to manipulate the situation.

In terms of inspiring passion, I fail to see what that has to do with this. When my wife and I went through something similar, it had zippo to do with passion, it had to do with us understanding what the problem was and making decisions on how we could correct (and more important us both acknowledging that we did in fact want to fix things). I didn't inspire my wife's passion, she didn't need that. We instead tackled what the actual problem was. Inspiring passion is just the sexy response, and really a way to deflect everything back on the guy. Maybe with these two passion is the issue, but it seems more like the issue revolves around being able to balance being a mother, employee, etc...


----------



## ocotillo

jld said:


> If I had a husband who looked all hurt at the thought of not having sex while I was trying to work and take care of little kids, I would be totally turned off. I would feel like I had another child on my hands.
> 
> But that's just me.


I agree, but by the same token, if my wife needed me to lead and inspire her, I would have felt like I had yet another child on my hands. Leadership and inspiration is already big enough job for a father who takes that responsibility seriously. 

Maybe I'm wrong here, but parenting strikes me as a team effort. No mother or father needs an adult child riding on their shoulders too...


----------



## Wazza

Bugged said:


> Marduk your 'routines' and discipline work..your obtain the desired effect...what if instead ALL your efforts were pointless?What if your 'discipline' did not work and things got worse every time?If you're good enough at faking your partner might think things are getting better, but inside your feel worse...day after day after day..what do you do then?


Hell of a situation, and sadly all too common.

Sex is a need, not an optional extra. If one partner still feels the need, and another wants no sex, one way or another it's going blow up at some point. 

If you want to be a couple, you have to find compromises as a couple.


----------



## Wazza

ConanHub said:


> Pretty damn pathetic.
> 
> I really wonder about what type of man her husband is.
> 
> Mrs. Conan has had two sons and taken care of business without more than a slow period of time that lasted maybe a week and a half.
> 
> She initiated sex all through her pregnancy and soon after.
> 
> This woman is not worthy of her marriage or family.
> 
> Some people don't know how good they have it.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Different people have different drives. And there are also physiological factors at play. For example, Mrs Wazza was quite damaged down there by childbirth. She needed time to heal. Hormonal changes aside, intercourse was simply not possible for several weeks after each birth.

Was Mrs Hub so active because she needed sex, or because she wanted to meet your need? How much difference does her enjoyment make to you?


----------



## EllisRedding

Wazza said:


> Different people have different drives. And there are also physiological factors at play. For example, Mrs Wazza was quite damaged down there by childbirth. She needed time to heal. Hormonal changes aside, intercourse was simply not possible for several weeks after each birth.
> 
> Was Mrs Hub so active because she needed sex, or because she wanted to meet your need? How much difference does her enjoyment make to you?


First kid we went about 4 months before sex. Second kid about 7-8 months. Third kid close to a year. We stopped having kids lol.


----------



## ConanHub

Wazza said:


> Different people have different drives. And there are also physiological factors at play. For example, Mrs Wazza was quite damaged down there by childbirth. She needed time to heal. Hormonal changes aside, intercourse was simply not possible for several weeks after each birth.
> 
> Was Mrs Hub so active because she needed sex, or because she wanted to meet your need? How much difference does her enjoyment make to you?


Her pleasure is always a priority of mine.

Not saying there is a set time. Different people heal at different rates.

Mrs. Conan is very healthy and snapped back quickly.

She was initiating because she was in control. I didn't allow myself a say so during her pregnancy or after.

She was having the baby so she set the pace and chose when we would have sex every time during her pregnancy and she chose when we would start after the birth.

We love to please each other and that is part of both of our motivation for sex.

The woman in the OP has a pathetic attitude about marriage, sex and children.

That is what my comment was referring to. Not an exact timeline for sex after pregnancy.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Wazza

ConanHub said:


> Her pleasure is always a priority of mine.
> 
> Not saying there is a set time. Different people heal at different rates.
> 
> Mrs. Conan is very healthy and snapped back quickly.
> 
> She was initiating because she was in control. I didn't allow myself a say so during her pregnancy or after.
> 
> She was having the baby so she set the pace and chose when we would have sex every time during her pregnancy and she chose when we would start after the birth.
> 
> We love to please each other and that is part of both of our motivation for sex.
> 
> The woman in the OP has a pathetic attitude about marriage, sex and children.
> 
> That is what my comment was referring to. Not an exact timeline for sex after pregnancy.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I'm reading a thread about the sixteen commandments of poon, and from your posts there I discover that you are a bona fide sex god, with women swarming all over him. An i am happy for you. 

To be honest, i don't have the level of raw sexual attracion that you described in your posts on that thread. I don't have the receptionists in hotel rooms propositioning me, or the girl out at the supermarket checkout offering to help me search my pants for change.

I certainly get opportunities for sex, but not like that. It necessarily leads to a different dynamic.

Your original question that sparked my posts was "what sort of man is he?" If the blogger's husband were me, the answer would be, "a man who sees sex as very important, but only one component of a relationship."

Ths is different for each couple, and the solutions that work for one wont work for another. The core problem I see is that the blogger's husband has made it clear his needs are not being met, and her response is it doesn't matter.

I actually read a couple of other blogs on the site, and i get the impression its about affirmation. The purpose of this blog is to say to women who feel this way "its ok". Which is sad, because its not. totally valid to have those feelings, but to choose not to work at finding mutually acceptable solutions is spectacularly stupid. Or (when you look at the lists of things she puts ahead of her husband's needs in her priorities, such as career and travel) a shortsighted exercise in priorities.


----------



## EllisRedding

Wazza said:


> I actually read a couple of other blogs on the site, and i get the impression its about affirmation. The purpose of this blog is to say to women who feel this way "its ok". Which is sad, because its not. *totally valid to have those feelings, but to choose not to work at finding mutually acceptable solutions is spectacularly stupid. *Or (when you look at the lists of things she puts ahead of her husband's needs in her priorities, such as career and travel) a shortsighted exercise in priorities.


Exactly. Basically, it reads as if she married this guy so she could have a kid. Now that the kid goal is accomplished, he needs to move aside. It's selfish, she is purely using him as a safety net to fall back on at some point down the road.


----------



## ConanHub

Wazza said:


> I'm reading a thread about the sixteen commandments of poon, and from your posts there I discover that you are a bona fide sex god, with women swarming all over him. An i am happy for you.
> 
> To be honest, i don't have the level of raw sexual attracion that you described in your posts on that thread. I don't have the receptionists in hotel rooms propositioning me, or the girl out at the supermarket checkout offering to help me search my pants for change.
> 
> I certainly get opportunities for sex, but not like that. It necessarily leads to a different dynamic.
> 
> Your original question that sparked my posts was "what sort of man is he?" If the blogger's husband were me, the answer would be, "a man who sees sex as very important, but only one component of a relationship."
> 
> Ths is different for each couple, and the solutions that work for one wont work for another. The core problem I see is that the blogger's husband has made it clear his needs are not being met, and her response is it doesn't matter.
> 
> I actually read a couple of other blogs on the site, and i get the impression its about affirmation. The purpose of this blog is to say to women who feel this way "its ok". Which is sad, because its not. totally valid to have those feelings, but to choose not to work at finding mutually acceptable solutions is spectacularly stupid. Or (when you look at the lists of things she puts ahead of her husband's needs in her priorities, such as career and travel) a shortsighted exercise in priorities.


I think a woman like that needs to be promptly dumped on her ass.

I don't really comprehend people, not a gender issue, that tolerate that level of disrespect and absolute lack of intimate desire.

I really do think some people do not comprehend how good they have it.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## morituri

I had a talk last night with a good buddy of mine who had confided in me a few months prior that *he and his wife had not had sex in months* and it was driving him crazy. I asked him for an update about his sexless period his marriage was going through, and he told me that he and his wife had a huge fight a few weeks back and *she told him to go get himself a girlfriend if he wanted sex that much*. He packed up his things and left his home for an entire week. During that period, his wife was frantically trying to reach him and leaving messages pleading for him to come home to her. He replied once saying that he was taking her recommendation and searching for a girlfriend. Needless to say this only caused panic in his wife and she started leaving VM messages crying and pleading with him about not cheating on her with another woman. He returned home and his wife tried to seduce him but his resentment left him cold as a stone. *He told her that unless the two of them committed to changing the marriage for BOTH each other's benefit, that he was going to file for divorce.* They are now seeing a sex therapist who is helping both of them to be more loving in and outside the bedroom. I hope they can make it work.

I just had to share this story because it precisely illustrates the destructiveness of issuing hall passes or telling your spouse to get a girlfriend or boyfriend. It is an emotional grenade that when it explodes, the damage to a marriage may well be irreparable.

Lastly, one woman poster said "for us girls, sex is between the ears, not between our legs". The same can be said for us men as well for if masturbation was more satisfying than the physical and emotional connection that sex brings, then no man would ever want to get married to a woman only to live the life of a celibate monk. All sex starts and ends between the ears.


----------



## Thor

Issuing the hall pass is a manipulation. The woman in the article expects her husband will never use it. So she is manipulating him into feeling guilty for wanting sex, and thus she expects he'll stop asking for sex and even stop wanting sex. How bothersome that he would want sex! She has set up a situation where he feels guilty asking her for sex because she told him she doesn't want it. And he feels guilty going outside of the marriage for sex, because that is his belief system. So she has just set him up for frustration and guilt, while she feels smugly content that he won't bother her for sex any more.

Manipulation is abuse.

Morituri's friend did the right thing, he called his wife on the attempted manipulation.


----------



## jld

See, I think his putting pressure on her for sex by guilting her is manipulation. And if he has more power in the relationship, then that would qualify, to me, as abuse.

He needs to lay off, start meeting her emotional needs, and, honestly, see to it her physical needs get better met, too. The woman is tired. Having small children is tiring!


----------



## jld

EllisRedding said:


> The issue with sex, at least how it reads in her post, is she threw it in his face by telling him to go fvk someone else. There is nothing constructive about such a response, and as I mentioned before a statement like that is made solely for her to manipulate the situation.


She is trying to get some breathing room. She is stressed out by her job and the demands of small kids. He needs to do a better job meeting her needs.



> In terms of inspiring passion, I fail to see what that has to do with this. When my wife and I went through something similar, it had zippo to do with passion, it had to do with us understanding what the problem was and making decisions on how we could correct (and more important us both acknowledging that we did in fact want to fix things). I didn't inspire my wife's passion, she didn't need that. We instead tackled what the actual problem was. Inspiring passion is just the sexy response, and really a way to deflect everything back on the guy. Maybe with these two passion is the issue, but it seems more like the issue revolves around being able to balance being a mother, employee, etc...


My husband has always inspired my passion (attraction). If he did not, we would not be married, much less having sex together.

Who wants to have sex with someone they are not feeling attraction for?


----------



## jld

ocotillo said:


> I agree, but by the same token, if my wife needed me to lead and inspire her, I would have felt like I had yet another child on my hands. Leadership and inspiration is already big enough job for a father who takes that responsibility seriously.
> 
> Maybe I'm wrong here, but parenting strikes me as a team effort. No mother or father needs an adult child riding on their shoulders too...


Some men are okay with it. Just sayin.'


----------



## morituri

jld said:


> See, I think his putting pressure on her for sex by guilting her is manipulation. And if he has more power in the relationship, then that would qualify, to me, as abuse.
> 
> He needs to lay off, start meeting her emotional needs, and, honestly, see to it her physical needs get better met, too. The woman is tired. Having small children is tiring!


Who are you referring to?


----------



## jld

morituri said:


> Who are you referring to?


The husband of the blogger.


----------



## morituri

jld said:


> Who wants to have sex with someone they are not feeling attraction for?


And this might just be the conclusion that the husband may already have reached. The shutting down of his sexual attraction for his wife and the eventual dying of his love for her.

I am as anti-affair as they come but if she ever becomes a BW, it is going to be hard for me to feel any sympathy or empathy considering that she sowed the seeds of her husband's emotional decoupling.


----------



## LonelyGirl1963

I read her article and the feeling I keep getting from her is one of resignation. Like she has given up on everything. She will never have her old body back, she has exchanged her bond with her husband for her bond with her child instead of the mother/child bond being in addition to the bond she shares with her H. She has failed to create a family, it's just her and the kids.

Seems like she just doesn't want to be bothered to cook metaphorically speaking, so she sends him down to the corner for some dinner. Of course she sees hurt in his eyes. Who wouldn't be hurt if they had just been abandoned. I personally think she hates her life, she has given up on it, and she is just too damn tired and depressed to care anymore.

As is so often the case, this has very little to do with sex. Lack of desire is just a symptom of something a whole lot bigger.


----------



## farsidejunky

jld said:


> She is trying to get some breathing room. She is stressed out by her job and the demands of small kids.


And travel. And some other drivel she has prioritized over her husband, who she praised several times in the article. 

As for meeting needs... She didn't make it sound at all like he was falling short, but rather just made excuses as to why she wouldn't step up.


----------



## Fozzy

morituri said:


> I had a talk last night with a good buddy of mine who had confided in me a few months prior that *he and his wife had not had sex in months* and it was driving him crazy. I asked him for an update about his sexless period his marriage was going through, and he told me that he and his wife had a huge fight a few weeks back and *she told him to go get himself a girlfriend if he wanted sex that much*. He packed up his things and left his home for an entire week. During that period, his wife was frantically trying to reach him and leaving messages pleading for him to come home to her. He replied once saying that he was taking her recommendation and searching for a girlfriend. Needless to say this only caused panic in his wife and she started leaving VM messages crying and pleading with him about not cheating on her with another woman. He returned home and his wife tried to seduce him but his resentment left him cold as a stone. *He told her that unless the two of them committed to changing the marriage for BOTH each other's benefit, that he was going to file for divorce.* They are now seeing a sex therapist who is helping both of them to be more loving in and outside the bedroom. I hope they can make it work.
> 
> I just had to share this story because it precisely illustrates the destructiveness of issuing hall passes or telling your spouse to get a girlfriend or boyfriend. It is an emotional grenade that when it explodes, the damage to a marriage may well be irreparable.
> 
> *Lastly, one woman poster said "for us girls, sex is between the ears, not between our legs". The same can be said for us men as well for if masturbation was more satisfying than the physical and emotional connection that sex brings, then no man would ever want to get married to a woman only to live the life of a celibate monk. All sex starts and ends between the ears*.


Bravo, sir. Bravo.


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening 
As I see it anyone can feel free to turn down sex if they don't want it. Anyone can leave a marriage if they are not happy with their sex life.

As long as no intentional deception is involved (eg, not intentional bait / switch), no one is at fault

Making an offer like a "hall pass" is only a morally acceptable action if you are REALLY content with your partner taking you up on that offer. Even if that is true, offering your partner sex with someone else, is not a substitute for having sex with them yourself.

People with incompatible sex drives should not get or stay married.


A good friend of mine often says "babies ruin lives". I've seen it a depressing number of times.


----------



## jld

morituri said:


> And this might just be the conclusion that the husband may already have reached. The shutting down of his sexual attraction for his wife and the eventual dying of his love for her.
> 
> I am as anti-affair as they come but if she ever becomes a BW, it is going to be hard for me to feel any sympathy or empathy considering that she sowed the seeds of her husband's emotional decoupling.


I do not often see men as victims. I certainly do not see the husband of the blogger as one.

And when a man comes here reporting his wife as having had a PA or EA, I always wonder how long her emotional needs went unmet before she fell off that cliff.

I think men are strong, or have the potential to be. And I think there is great strength in humbling himself to see where he has not met her needs, and great power in starting to do so.


----------



## jld

LonelyGirl1963 said:


> I read her article and the feeling I keep getting from her is one of resignation. Like she has given up on everything. She will never have her old body back, she has exchanged her bond with her husband for her bond with her child instead of the mother/child bond being in addition to the bond she shares with her H. She has failed to create a family, it's just her and the kids.
> 
> Seems like she just doesn't want to be bothered to cook metaphorically speaking, so she sends him down to the corner for some dinner. Of course she sees hurt in his eyes. Who wouldn't be hurt if they had just been abandoned. I personally think she hates her life, she has given up on it, and she is just too damn tired and depressed to care anymore.
> 
> As is so often the case, this has very little to do with sex. Lack of desire is just a symptom of something a whole lot bigger.


Abandoned? This is a grown man we are talking about. He has much potential he could be tapping into. He is not helpless.

Affairs are just a symptom, too.


----------



## jld

farsidejunky said:


> And travel. And some other drivel she has prioritized over her husband, who she praised several times in the article.
> 
> As for meeting needs... She didn't make it sound at all like he was falling short, but rather just made excuses as to why she wouldn't step up.


I think looking past her words, to the underlying emotions, could be helpful here.

I don't think she wants her husband to cheat. I think she just feels overwhelmed by the expectations on her. And she is trying to get that monkey off her back. 

And of all of those expectations she feels have been heaped on her, her husband is the one who is most able to stop being a demand on her, and instead to become a nurturer. When he starts meeting those emotional needs of hers, I think he will see her drive come back. 

I am telling you, when I think back about when my own children were small, and how out of my mind I felt at times with all their demands on me, I can only feel sympathy for her. I cannot imagine having also been employed at that time. 

And a needy, demanding husband to boot? Forget it. I would have been throwing out dead wood, too. Anything to get some emotional oxygen. And I think she is desperately seeking emotional oxygen. It would be great if he could give it to her.


----------



## jld

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> As I see it anyone can feel free to turn down sex if they don't want it. Anyone can leave a marriage if they are not happy with their sex life.
> 
> As long as no intentional deception is involved (eg, not intentional bait / switch), no one is at fault
> 
> Making an offer like a "hall pass" is only a morally acceptable action if you are REALLY content with your partner taking you up on that offer. Even if that is true, offering your partner sex with someone else, is not a substitute for having sex with them yourself.
> 
> People with incompatible sex drives should not get or stay married.
> 
> 
> A good friend of mine often says "babies ruin lives". I've seen it a depressing number of times.


Babies are also a great investment. 

Try to look beyond her words, Richard. Try to look at the underlying emotions that would have provoked those words.

Is everyone taking her words at face value? Is that what is happening here?

Has anyone here not said dramatic things at some point just because they were overwhelmed in the moment? My goodness, if my husband had taken all my words literally over the course of the last 22 years, I don't know what shape we would be in now.

Instead, he looks past my words into my heart. He seeks to understand why those dramatic words were uttered. He does not nurse hurt in his heart towards me. He does not look after only his own interests. And that is surely another reason we have never been sexless.


----------



## morituri

jld said:


> And when a man comes here reporting his wife as having had a PA or EA, I always wonder how long her emotional needs went unmet before she fell off that cliff.


And when a woman comes here reporting that her husband had a PA or EA. I always wonder how long his emotional needs went unmet before he fell off that cliff.


----------



## jld

morituri said:


> And when a woman comes here reporting that her husband had a PA or EA. I always wonder how long his emotional needs went unmet before he fell off that cliff.


It is possible, too.

Mori, are you an equal relationship guy? Do you believe that men and women are equally responsible for their marriage? 

My husband and I do not believe that way. My husband says that women often take on responsibilities in family life that men are either not aware of, or do not fully appreciate the weight of. He is a big believer in men taking the lead in marriage, particularly the lead in active listening, and seeking to understand their wives. He does not think there is anything to be gained by blaming a wife, but much to be gained by seeking to understand her.


----------



## morituri

jld said:


> It is possible, too.
> 
> Mori, are you an equal relationship guy? Do you believe that men and women are equally responsible for their marriage


I believe that they are equally responsible for caring for one another and to be considerate towards each other. That they are equally responsible for protecting the marriage by not crossing marital boundaries.



> My husband and I do not believe that way. My husband says that women often take on responsibilities in family life that men are either not aware of, or do not fully appreciate the weight of. He is a big believer in men taking the lead in marriage, particularly the lead in active listening, and seeking to understand their wives. He does not think there is anything to be gained by blaming a wife, but much to be gained by seeking to understand her.


That is a good approach that works beautifully when the wife is mentally and emotionally healthy, and who treats her husband with love and respect, but sadly it falls miserably when a wife is selfish or suffers from a personality disorder caused by a trauma she suffered when she was young.

jld, how would you feel if your husband one day said to you:

"Honey, I give you permission to have a boyfriend to satisfy those emotional needs that I am not willing to meet because I am working so much on my businesses so we can enjoy our later years. Just don't fall in love and leave me."

How would you take it?


----------



## Wazza

morituri said:


> I had a talk last night with a good buddy of mine who had confided in me a few months prior that *he and his wife had not had sex in months* and it was driving him crazy. I asked him for an update about his sexless period his marriage was going through, and he told me that he and his wife had a huge fight a few weeks back and *she told him to go get himself a girlfriend if he wanted sex that much*. He packed up his things and left his home for an entire week. During that period, his wife was frantically trying to reach him and leaving messages pleading for him to come home to her. He replied once saying that he was taking her recommendation and searching for a girlfriend. Needless to say this only caused panic in his wife and she started leaving VM messages crying and pleading with him about not cheating on her with another woman. *He returned home and his wife tried to seduce him but his resentment left him cold as a stone.*


I admire that he is trying counselling, and i wish him well, but to be honest, if my wife were not interested in sex until something like this happened.....I would have to question her true feelings. I don't know how I could rebuild from something like this.


----------



## morituri

Wazza said:


> I admire that he is trying counselling, and i wish him well, but to be honest, if my wife were not interested in sex until something like this happened.....I would have to question her true feelings. I don't know how I could rebuild from something like this.


And that is what he was feeling as well when she tried to give him sex not born from desire but from fear. Nevertheless he still has enough love for her to try one last time before completely giving up and moving on with his life without her.

We human beings are very often notorious for waiting until a crisis is upon us before we take action. His wife did not believe (like many women do) that sex was his way of emotionally connecting to her. She treated sex like a disposable chore not realizing that she was committing emotional neglect (*sex is very much an emotional need*) and putting her marriage on the brink of going over the cliff of no return. She now knows differently.


----------



## jld

morituri said:


> That is a good approach that works beautifully when the wife is mentally and emotionally healthy, and who treats her husband with love and respect, but sadly it falls miserably when a wife is selfish or suffers from a personality disorder caused by a trauma she suffered when she was young.


I respect Dug because he has earned that respect. If I did not respect him, I would not feel attracted to him. He has therefore nearly 100% control over my attraction to him. I hardly think I am rare that way among wives. 



> jld, how would you feel if your husband one day said to you:
> 
> "Honey, I give you permission to have a boyfriend to satisfy those emotional needs that I am not willing to meet because I am working so much on my businesses so we can enjoy our later years. Just don't fall in love and leave me."
> 
> How would you take it?


I would feel hurt and neglected. I don't want another man. I want my husband. And I would wait until I was a priority again, sad and lonely as that wait might be. He would be working for us, after all.


----------



## jld

I think morituri brings up a good point in that last line. The wife is working for the family. She is prioritizing the kids and her job. If the husband could help more with the kids, take a more long term vision, she could relax, too.

Marriage is for the long haul. Don't get hung up on sex in the short term, guys. Start investing in your wives. I think it will pay off, if you chose wisely.


----------



## morituri

Sleep, must have sleep.:sleeping:


----------



## Wazza

jld said:


> Marriage is for the long haul. Don't get hung up on sex in the short term, guys. Start investing in your wives. I think it will pay off, if you chose wisely.


How do you determine whether you chose wisely? When do you cut your losses? And how long do you go without sex before giving up?


----------



## EllisRedding

Wazza said:


> How do you determine whether you chose wisely? When do you cut your losses? And how long do you go without sex before giving up?


Lol, so easy to say "chose wisely". Also, given that it apparently is the guys responsibility to fix any issues in a marriage b/c it is a short coming on his side (i.e. the wife is only there to reciprocate back to him if AND ONLY IF he can "inspire enough passion"), well, go without sex indefinitely if that is what it takes ...

Honestly, as far as sex, I think it is something you first have to talk to your wife about, and both come to some sort of understanding. You should be able to express your concerns/needs as should she, and see where it goes. When my wife and I spoke, I didn't have some sort of deadline. I had just gotten to the point where something needed to change, it wasn't healthy for either of us. If when I spoke to my wife her response was to go fvk someone else, well, I think that would speak volumes about where the marriage was heading. My bigger concern, the longer it went on, not only the harder it would be to get on track, the resentment would grow, and the easier it would become to place everything else ahead of our marriage. If you guys are talking and really care about the marriage you will find a way to work through it, even if it means finding some middle ground. If she is unwilling to budge (just as the blog author where travel was ahead of her marriage ...), that may be enough of a warning sign to start considering alternatives ...


----------



## jld

Wazza said:


> How do you determine whether you chose wisely? When do you cut your losses? And how long do you go without sex before giving up?


Are you pleased with the results? Then you chose wisely.

Obviously we will all judge this differently.

I think people know when it is over. They know when things will never get better, when they cannot effect change. It is probably a pit of your stomach feeling.

You leave when your own satisfaction matters more than seeing your kids every day, I guess. And I am sorry if that seems harsh. 

I think much can be done before things get to that point. Seeking to understand is key. Examining one's own conscience is key. 

That Reconciliation with a Hardened Wife link would be helpful here. I am not able to link it with my iPad, unfortunately. But it is a great eye view into how women become distanced from their husbands, and how the husbands can bridge that distance. Highly recommended.


----------



## jld

EllisRedding said:


> Lol, so easy to say "chose wisely". Also, given that it apparently is the guys responsibility to fix any issues in a marriage b/c it is a short coming on his side (i.e. the wife is only there to reciprocate back to him if AND ONLY IF he can "inspire enough passion"), well, go without sex indefinitely if that is what it takes ...


It is common for women to be responders, Ellis. That is part of how a man can grow in marriage. Instead of using control techniques on his wife, or being passive, a wise man, imo, will choose to inspire her. 

He does that by first becoming a man of integrity. That requires acknowledging True North, a life based on virtues, or principles, as Stephen Covey describes it, and then committing his life to living by it.

Secondly, he needs to seek to understand his wife, and then to be understood by her. Again, the Reconciling with a Hardened Wife article describes very well how a wife might feel neglected by her husband, and how he can turn this around. He will need patience, persistence, and humility, all virtues in themselves.



> Honestly, as far as sex, I think it is something you first have to talk to your wife about, and both come to some sort of understanding. You should be able to express your concerns/needs as should she, and see where it goes. When my wife and I spoke, I didn't have some sort of deadline. I had just gotten to the point where something needed to change, it wasn't healthy for either of us. If when I spoke to my wife her response was to go fvk someone else, well, I think that would speak volumes about where the marriage was heading. My bigger concern, the longer it went on, not only the harder it would be to get on track, the resentment would grow, and the easier it would become to place everything else ahead of our marriage. If you guys are talking and really care about the marriage you will find a way to work through it, even if it means finding some middle ground. If she is unwilling to budge (just as the blog author where travel was ahead of her marriage ...), that may be enough of a warning sign to start considering alternatives ...


Be willing to become the leader, at least for a while. She may not be willing or able to carry exactly half right away, or ever. Try to be open to carrying more than half, if at all possible. An exact 50/50 split of responsibility does not work in every marriage.


----------



## ConanHub

I would call it quits way before it ever got to that point.

I am engaged and present with my wife and I require the same.

I would notice immediately when something is off and address it.

If she didn't start responding and doing her part to work on the marriage, she would be in danger of being dumped and she knows it.

Sounds harsh but no more so than becoming a cold, dried up woman.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

ConanHub said:


> I would call it quits way before it ever got to that point.
> 
> I am engaged and present with my wife and I require the same.
> 
> I would notice immediately when something is off and address it.
> 
> *If she didn't start responding and doing her part to work on the marriage, she would be in danger of being dumped and she knows it.*
> 
> Sounds harsh but no more so than becoming a cold, dried up woman.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Where do your Christian beliefs figure into this, Conan?

I ask because I cannot imagine Jesus giving this advice to anyone.


----------



## EllisRedding

jld said:


> It is common for women to be responders, Ellis. That is part of how a man can grow in marriage. Instead of using control techniques on his wife, or being passive, a wise man, imo, will choose to inspire her.
> 
> He does that by first becoming a man of integrity. That requires acknowledging True North, a life based on virtues, or principles, as Stephen Covey describes it, and then committing his life to living by it.
> 
> Secondly, he needs to seek to understand his wife, and then to be understood by her. Again, the Reconciling with a Hardened Wife article describes very well how a wife might feel neglected by her husband, and how he can turn this around. He will need patience, persistence, and humility, all virtues in themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> Be willing to become the leader, at least for a while. She may not be willing or able to carry exactly half right away, or ever. Try to be open to carrying more than half, if at all possible. An exact 50/50 split of responsibility does not work in every marriage.


We have a differing opinion of the role a man and woman have in a relationship. That is fine it works for you and your husband the dynamic you have. IMO though for most that is a recipe for disaster. Everything you write is about how a "guy" can grow in a marriage, how he needs to do this, that, etc... you place the responsibility and blame of the marriage squarely on a guys shoulders. You can't claim equality amongst them yet say HE has to be the driver of the relationship. Of course, it won't be an even 50/50, there will be a lot of factors (personality and otherwise) that determine the roles each person plays. Once again, I do not see this situation as one where passion/inspire comes into play. She has deliberately turned a cold shoulder to him, placed everything else in her life above him. Hopefully though she does get that chance to travel she so desperately wants ...

You talk about understanding his wife ... so his wife telling him to go fvk someone else and then PUBLICLY broadcasting this on a blog, you believe that is the type of woman that deserves his respect ...


----------



## jld

EllisRedding said:


> We have a differing opinion of the role a man and woman have in a relationship. That is fine it works for you and your husband the dynamic you have. IMO though for most that is a recipe for disaster. Everything you write is about how a "guy" can grow in a marriage, how he needs to do this, that, etc... you place the responsibility and blame of the marriage squarely on a guys shoulders. You can't claim equality amongst them yet say HE has to be the driver of the relationship. Of course, it won't be an even 50/50, there will be a lot of factors (personality and otherwise) that determine the roles each person plays. Once again, I do not see this situation as one where passion/inspire comes into play. She has deliberately turned a cold shoulder to him, placed everything else in her life above him. Hopefully though she does get that chance to travel she so desperately wants ...
> 
> You talk about understanding his wife ... so his wife telling him to go fvk someone else and then PUBLICLY broadcasting this on a blog, you believe that is the type of woman that deserves his respect ...


Again, try to look past her words to her underlying emotions.

Ellis, have you ever worked in sales? Good salespeople have to look beyond what is first presented all the time. They have to figure out what their customers need and then sell them on it. And the good ones will sell them no more and no less than they need, and something of good quality. That will inspire the trust of the customer.

This 50/50 idea in relationships limits people, I think. 

Instead, I would encourage you to go all in. Think, "If it is to be, it is up to me." _That_ is empowering.


----------



## Thor

jld said:


> Are you pleased with the results? Then you chose wisely.
> 
> Obviously we will all judge this differently.
> 
> I think people know when it is over. They know when things will never get better, when they cannot effect change. It is probably a pit of your stomach feeling.


When my wife says she doesn't care for sex with me, and I have a hall pass, but she is fine sharing in my income, chores, and parenting? I would say those results would say a man did not choose wisely!


----------



## jld

Thor said:


> When my wife says she doesn't care for sex with me, and I have a hall pass, but she is fine sharing in my income, chores, and parenting? I would say those results would say a man did not choose wisely!


The blogger is working, too. The husband is not carrying the load there. Things might be different if he were.

I would say a man did not choose wisely if he married for anything other than fine character, proven over time.

_Marry in haste, repent at leisure._


----------



## ConanHub

jld said:


> Where do your Christian beliefs figure into this, Conan?
> 
> I ask because I cannot imagine Jesus giving this advice to anyone.


I am rushed today so I gave a short response.

Biblically, I could site sexual immorality.

I actually do take the lead position in our marriage and accept responsibility for a great deal of our issues. I even take responsibility for her poor behavior in that, I am responsible to address it and open up a path to a solution. 

I met my wife when I was 20 and we are going strong almost 24 years later.

I give a lot in my marriage and always have. Mrs. Conan would have to be seriously committed to destruction to get away from me but I have requirements and limits. So does God.

Christianity doesn't mean doormat. I serve a dynamic, passionate God and I am a dynamic, passionate man.

If a woman is going to ignore the damage she is doing and is hell bent on destroying her marriage then a man should promptly dump her on her spoiled butt.

God doesn't put up with everything and has boundaries. He is not a doormat, to be taken lightly.

If a Christian woman forgets her marriage vows and won't be reminded, she is opting out.

To be honest though, I am twice as hard on Christian men about their responsibility in marriage.

I am definitely a promoter of both spouses investing in the marriage.

I do not promote one sided effort while the other partner continuously treats them poorly and neglects them, or simply.takes them for granted and treats them like a piece of furniture.

That is a sham if a marriage. It would be similar to someone selling you a car. You do all the paperwork and pay the agreed upon price and when you go to collect your car, you receive a loaded dung cart.

That dung cart is not a car and what many people have is not a marriage.

It takes two to make a marriage and only one to destroy it or make it into some weird thing that doesn't resemble a marriage at all.

I don't condone people continuing in a sham.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## EllisRedding

jld said:


> EllisRedding said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have a differing opinion of the role a man and woman have in a relationship. That is fine it works for you and your husband the dynamic you have. IMO though for most that is a recipe for disaster. Everything you write is about how a "guy" can grow in a marriage, how he needs to do this, that, etc... you place the responsibility and blame of the marriage squarely on a guys shoulders. You can't claim equality amongst them yet say HE has to be the driver of the relationship. Of course, it won't be an even 50/50, there will be a lot of factors (personality and otherwise) that determine the roles each person plays. Once again, I do not see this situation as one where passion/inspire comes into play. She has deliberately turned a cold shoulder to him, placed everything else in her life above him. Hopefully though she does get that chance to travel she so desperately wants ...
> 
> You talk about understanding his wife ... so his wife telling him to go fvk someone else and then PUBLICLY broadcasting this on a blog, you believe that is the type of woman that deserves his respect ...
> 
> 
> 
> Again, try to look past her words to her underlying emotions.
> 
> Ellis, have you ever worked in sales? Good salespeople have to look beyond what is first presented all the time. They have to figure out what their customers need and then sell them on it. And the good ones will sell them no more and no less than they need, and something of good quality. That will inspire the trust of the customer.
> 
> This 50/50 idea in relationships limits people, I think.
> 
> Instead, I would encourage you to go all in. Think, "If it is to be, it is up to me." _That_ is empowering.
Click to expand...

Again, I am actually not disregarding her emotions . I can actually sympathize with her since my wife dealt with some of the same issues. However, I would not be willing to let her off the hook as you would because it is the guy who is failing .... she wants no accountability in her marriage, now that she had a kid it will never be the same again .... 

For him to go "all in" would basically mean for him to go fvk other women as his wife suggested. I am sorry, but sales and blatantly disregarding the emotions of her husband have zippo to do with each other. 

Unfortunately your approach let's her off the hook. She has emotions/needs, if/when he finds a way to meet them then maybe just maybe he will be lucky enough to have it reciprocated .... might as well just end the marriage now...


----------



## jld

I am glad to hear you are harder on Christian men than Christian women, Conan. My husband is harder on men, period. He says they can take it, and they need it.

I think the man is the foundation of the family. When we lived in India, an older man we knew there told Dug that if the father is good, the whole family is good. If the father is bad, the whole family is bad.

That is probably an exaggeration, but it is interesting to think about.

I take the verse that says that men should love their wives as Christ loved the Church to heart. Jesus would not have divorced a woman who was not feeling passionate. Jesus would have inspired her passion. And he would not have whined while doing it.


----------



## jld

EllisRedding said:


> Again, I am actually not disregarding her emotions . I can actually sympathize with her since my wife dealt with some of the same issues. However, I would not be willing to let her off the hook as you would because it is the guy who is failing .... she wants no accountability in her marriage, now that she had a kid it will never be the same again ....
> 
> For him to go "all in" would basically mean for him to go fvk other women as his wife suggested. I am sorry, but sales and blatantly disregarding the emotions of her husband have zippo to do with each other.
> 
> Unfortunately your approach let's her off the hook. She has emotions/needs, if/when he finds a way to meet them then maybe just maybe he will be lucky enough to have it reciprocated .... might as well just end the marriage now...


No, going all in would be saying, "I am going to seek to understand her. I am going to meet her needs. I am not going to allow myself to give into whining, complaining, feeling sorry for myself. I am stronger than that. Or I am going to _become_ stronger than that."

Men are powerful. Even if they do not see it, have not yet tapped into it, they have it within them. Gottman's research proves that.

Okay, switched to a PC. Here is a link that could greatly benefit probably every husband, everywhere:

Reconciliation with a Hardened Wife


----------



## ConanHub

Jesus is God in my book and his bride accepts him as Lord. There are many that try and claim Him but put in no effort.

God won't put up with a disconnected woman. There is extremely clear language on this.

I am all for a husband being engaged and caring but a one sided marriage is no marriage at all.

Understand? If a woman wants a husband she better behave like a wife.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

ConanHub said:


> Jesus is God in my book and his bride accepts him as Lord. There are many that try and claim Him but put in no effort.
> 
> God won't put up with a disconnected woman. There is extremely clear language on this.
> 
> I am all for a husband being engaged and caring but a one sided marriage is no marriage at all.
> 
> Understand? If a woman wants a husband she better behave like a wife.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I hear fear there, Conan. Perfect love casts out all fear, right?

I don't recall anything in the New Testament that says a man should divorce his wife for not having sex with him. I understand people can spin anything any way they want, but nothing about Jesus leads me to believe he would condone that. Much about him makes me believe he would encourage empathy and patience.


----------



## morituri

jld said:


> *I respect Dug because he has earned that respect. If I did not respect him, I would not feel attracted to him. He has therefore nearly 100% control over my attraction to him. I hardly think I am rare that way among wives*.


And it would probably be safe to say that if Dug ever did this that your respect for him as a man and a husband would disappear as well as any attraction you had for him. This would be a natural consequence to his callous lack of caring and consideration for your well being. Nobody could fault you for this.



> I would feel hurt and neglected. I don't want another man. I want my husband. And I would wait until I was a priority again, sad and lonely as that wait might be. He would be working for us, after all.


It's one thing to wait until your husband makes you a priority and quite another for your husband to tell you flat out that you are not a priority and to go find yourself another man who will make you a priority in his life. With the former, there is hope that eventually you'll become a priority in his life again but in the latter all hope is destroyed that you will ever again will become his top priority in his life.


----------



## ConanHub

jld said:


> I hear fear there, Conan. Perfect love casts out all fear, right?
> 
> I don't recall anything in the New Testament that says a man should divorce his wife for not having sex with him. I understand people can spin anything any way they want, but nothing about Jesus leads me to believe he would condone that. Much about him makes me believe he would encourage empathy and patience.


jld. Your understanding of exactly what is going on in the bible seems limited.

Jesus said many are going to find their way into hell. Those that even claim Him but never acted or behaved like a follower of Jesus will wind up in hell. He has rejected them because despite their claims, they were not His.

Just because someone calls themselves a wife doesn't mean they are.

A woman is responsible to behave like a wife to actually be a wife.

You understand? To be something you have to be it.

The many that are rejected by God are not His bride despite anything they might claim.

If a woman claims to be a wife she better damn well be a wife and not some roommate or anything else. You're either in or out.

Jesus requires commitment. He only chose 12. Many came to Him and he turned most away.

Many are called and few chosen. Jesus does not accept any sort of behavior. He is actually quite choosy and exclusive.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

He can bring her in, Conan. He doesn't have to wait to be served. He can start serving her and inspiring her passion. And that link can help him do it.


----------



## ConanHub

P.S. There is scripture up the wazoo that commands sexual attention from both spouses.

It mentions nothing about mood or circumstances.

Aside from medical issues, there is absolutely no excuse for a husband or wife to deny each other sex period.

The new testament commands sex between spouses. No wiggle room whatsoever.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

morituri said:


> And it would probably be safe to say that if Dug ever did this that your respect for him as a man and a husband would disappear as well as any attraction you had for him. This would be a natural consequence to his callous lack of caring and consideration for your well being. Nobody could fault you for this.
> 
> It's one thing to wait until your husband makes you a priority and quite another for your husband to tell you flat out that you are not a priority and to go find yourself another man who will make you a priority in his life. With the former, there is hope that eventually you'll become a priority in his life again but in the latter all hope is destroyed that you will ever again will become his top priority in his life.


Some wives are stubborn, morituri. Their love is steadfast and persistent.

I would have a lot to lose by ever leaving Dug. Not that he would ever say the thing you suggest.


----------



## jld

ConanHub said:


> P.S. There is scripture up the wazoo that commands sexual attention from both spouses.
> 
> It mentions nothing about mood or circumstances.
> 
> Aside from medical issues, there is absolutely no excuse for a husband or wife to deny each other sex period.
> 
> The new testament commands sex between spouses. No wiggle room whatsoever.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


You posted back in January that you refused to have sex with your wife for 3 days, because she had said some insensitive words to you. Iirc, you said she was apologizing profusely, but you were not having it. Were you therefore sinning, putting your pride and hurt feelings before your responsibility to her?


----------



## ConanHub

I am by no means letting husbands off the hook.

The woman in the article needs a good spanking and her husband needs to give it to her.

Husbands do need to take care of their wives period.

This thread is about a woman being very disconnected and we don't have the husband's side of the story.

Her attitude, however, is not that of a wife at all. She needs a hard wake up to that fact.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

ConanHub said:


> I am by no means letting husbands off the hook.
> 
> The woman in the article needs a good spanking and her husband needs to give it to her.
> 
> Husbands do need to take care of their wives period.
> 
> This thread is about a woman being very disconnected and we don't have the husband's side of the story.
> 
> Her attitude, however, is not that of a wife at all. She needs a hard wake up to that fact.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


She needs love and understanding. And some time off from those kids. And a husband who can see past his own desires. A mature man.

Then they might have some fun with a spanking.


----------



## ConanHub

jld said:


> You posted back in January that you refused to have sex with your wife for 3 days, because she had said some insensitive words to you. Iirc, you said she was apologizing profusely, but you were not having it. Were you therefore sinning, putting your pride and hurt feelings before your responsibility to her?


Yes.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

ConanHub said:


> Yes.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Thank you for acknowledging that, Conan. That is more than many men can do.


----------



## ConanHub

Don't get me wrong, I am for tenacious love. We all have failings and I'm not for throwing in the towel quickly.

It is when we choose to remain in a failing attitude that we will eventually destroy a marriage.

I have to be forgiven and do my share of forgiving to succeed.

There is an understanding that I will behave like a husband and she will behave like a wife.

If we go to long neglecting our duties we can't expect a marriage to continue.

The woman in the OP is past the point of even someone I would consider a wife. Telling her husband to have sex elsewhere.

I would have words with the husband though. He needs to get to the bottom of this.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

ConanHub said:


> Don't get me wrong, I am for tenacious love. We all have failings and I'm not for throwing in the towel quickly.
> 
> It is when we choose to remain in a failing attitude that we will eventually destroy a marriage.
> 
> I have to be forgiven and do my share of forgiving to succeed.
> 
> There is an understanding that I will behave like a husband and she will behave like a wife.
> 
> If we go to long neglecting our duties we can't expect a marriage to continue.
> 
> The woman in the OP is past the point of even someone I would consider a wife. Telling her husband to have sex elsewhere.
> 
> I would have words with the husband though. He needs to get to the bottom of this.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Yes, tenacious love. That describes Dug. 

This husband can absolutely turn this around. He just needs the right attitude and methods. That Hardened Wife link could be instrumental there.


----------



## ConanHub

jld said:


> Yes, tenacious love. That describes Dug.
> 
> This husband can absolutely turn this around. He just needs the right attitude and methods. That Hardened Wife link could be instrumental there.


O.K.! LOL! I'll read it! 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

ConanHub said:


> O.K.! LOL! I'll read it!
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Thank you, Conan.


----------



## morituri

jld said:


> Some wives are stubborn, morituri. Their love is steadfast and persistent.


They are obviously in the minority considering that in the U.S. 70% of the filings for divorce are initiated by women. I'm not discounting the validity of these divorce filings by women, simply pointing out reality.



> I would have a lot to lose by ever leaving Dug. Not that he would ever say the thing you suggest.


You don't have to leave Dug to lose him, you could lose Dug through illness or a tragic accident as well. Where are you going to be then?

Don't misunderstand me jld, I'm not advocating a trigger happy nuclear option approach at the first signs of trouble but when all attempts have been made without yielding any positive results, it is pretty hard not to push that red button and engage the launching of the nuclear marriage missile.


----------



## ocotillo

jld said:


> Some men are okay with it. Just sayin.'


Yes and some people need it. Even among those who don't, everyone gets stuck in a rut now and then and may need help to get out of it. 

With respect though, jld, I think you're trying to empathize with this woman, which is a good thing, but you may be projecting to much of yourself into that mental model, which is not necessarily an accurate thing.

You speak of the pressures of her job. Susan Hosseini is currently a freelance writer/blogger, apparently working from home. Writing articles like the one under discussion on this thread is her job. 

You speak of pressure to have sex, which is not something Ms. Hosseini has directly attributed to her husband. What she has expressed is an internal pressure to be all things to everyone, which is a standard nobody can hope to measure up to. 

You speak of the need for her husband to lead and inspire her. Yet Ms. Hosseini has said next to nothing about what her husband has done or not done. What she has said is that the changes in their relationship have been entirely changes in herself and that she is a deeply introverted person who often simply wants to be left alone. 

On the flip side of the coin, the hurtful things she is doing don't seem to enter into your mental picture. This is woman who tweets things like, "Can it be Mother's Day again? I'm not a fan of this whole Father's Day thing." This is a woman who told the father of her children that she doesn't care if he goes off and has sex with another woman. This is a woman speaks of the expletives her small children are picking up from her as if it were something funny. 

I'm not deliberately trying to be argumentative. I just don't understand. Does a woman "own" her behavior or is her husband ultimately responsible for it?


----------



## jld

morituri said:


> They are obviously in the minority considering that in the U.S. 70% of the filings for divorce are initiated by women. I'm not discounting the validity of these divorce filings by women, simply pointing out reality.


Morituri, have you read that Hardened Wife link yet? Please do. I think he explains well why some women initiate divorce.




> You don't have to leave Dug to lose him, you could lose Dug through illness or a tragic accident as well. Where are you going to be then?


This is one of my greatest fears, morituri. My husband has brought tremendous blessings to my life. My life would be greatly impoverished by his absence.



> Don't misunderstand me jld, I'm not advocating a trigger happy nuclear option approach at the first signs of trouble but when all attempts have been made without yielding any positive results, it is pretty hard not to push that red button and engage the launching of the nuclear marriage missile.


Not all attempts have been made. I am certain of that.


----------



## ConanHub

Don't think it is helping her marriage any.

Read partway through that link and saved it. Good reading and a useful tool.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## ocotillo

Lila said:


> I'm not here to defend the woman, but I read all of her tweets and blog entries to be one huge vent. She's sharing her deepest, darkest, most un-P.C thoughts with other women, and I think it's wonderful.


I would say that venting can be either healthy or unhealthy depending upon whether it allows us to safely dissipate harmful thoughts (And we all have them) or whether it reinforces and feeds those thoughts to the point where they explode in the faces of those we allegedly love. IMHO, the article under discussion speaks for itself.

...And that's all I have to say about that. :smile2:


----------



## Wazza

jld said:


> Where do your Christian beliefs figure into this, Conan?
> 
> I ask because I cannot imagine Jesus giving this advice to anyone.


Jesus would presumably point the blogger to 1Cor7:4-5, which contains more or less the same warning many of the commenters are giving.


----------



## thefam

@jld @ConanHub

Conan, I know you are familiar enough with the scripture to know that the only reason God ever allowed divorce in the first place was because of "the hardness of their hearts". Then Jesus admonishes men to not put away their wives for any reason except adultery. So in this case Conan, the hubsand's heart would be hardened toward God in order to put away his wife. Because Jesus would admonish him to stay with his wife and to recognize that love never fails. That is, his wife would perhaps fail by being a horrible wife, but he as a husband, if he continued to love her, would never fail.

As for the wife in this case, she would be held accountable for what God has said to women: reverence (that is, respect) your husbands. Don't refuse to have sex with your husbands except for a set aside time for fasting (although I think also in Leviticus it talks about a woman being unclean during her menstrual cycle and therefore should not be touched ... not sure if I'm remembering that one right). So in this case, the wife is very wrong in God's eyes for refusing sex with her husband. But if the husband leaves her for this, he would be wrong also. I'm strictly talking what God says about it, so anybody who doesn't believe in God, and is not a Christian feel free to ignore. 

Now I am going to go a little bit out on a limb here, but maybe that it is why it is a good that a woman be a SAHM, so that she can care for her children and care for her husband. I know that is not always possible, but it seems like the best scenario, because of the great responsibilities that come with being a mother. First, you go through 9 months of carrying the child which often wreaks havoc on the woman's body. Then, you go through recuperating from the birth as well as often, nursing the child. Even if the child is not breastfed, your body is still recuperating and your hormones are adjusting. Trying to work a full-time job during the first two years of a child's life seems like it would be very very difficult, and someone, either the child, the mother, or the marriage will end up getting the short end of the stick. Therefore it will fall upon the husband to accept a less than ideal sex life while the mother works, and cares for the child.

I did read the blog but can't remember if the mother had an opportunity to stay home with the children or not. But if that was something that was not financially viable for them, then I think the husband needs to have a little bit more understanding while she is juggling motherhood and working a full time job. If that opportunity was available and she turned it down, well then that's on her and she should bear some of the responsibility for the state of their sex life. But as a wife, in God's eyes, he expects her to not refuse her husband sexually. And there is nothing in God's word that relieves her of this responsibility, just as there is nothing in God's word that says its okay for her husband to divorce her.


----------



## LonelyGirl1963

ConanHub said:


> The woman in the article needs a good spanking and her husband needs to give it to her.
> 
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Haha Conan you kinky devil!!!>


----------



## ConanHub

Sexless marriages are sexually immoral marriages and I have seen and approved of divorce in those cases.

A young woman I know divorced her husband, with the blessing of the church and full.biblical support for her circumstances, because her husband stopped having sex with her.

Not just for a short period of time.

The actual scripture states sexual immorality, not adultery specifically although adultery certainly fits.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## ConanHub

Offering a hall pass is offering a divorce.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## soccermom2three

Bugged said:


> I don't see a lot of *COMPASSION *on this 3d..except from jld maybe...
> 
> Is it so difficult to understand that she tried and failed?
> What was she supposed to do? Get herself a drinking problem ?
> Do you think she's doing that on purpose?That she _likes _being like that?
> When you make an offer like an hall pass you don't make it because you're selfish..you make it because you're being realistic...You're giving up possessiveness for your partner's good..or at least you _think _it's for his good...
> 
> jld has a point that makes sense , the other options would be?
> Spanking?
> whatever...


Disagree. The spouse that offers the hall pass or "go get a mistress" more than likely knows that their spouse will not take them up on it so it's really just an empty offer, nothing really sacrificial. 

In addition, the whole offer is quite hurtful. I would be devastated if this happened in my marriage. It would mean my husband didn't want me.


----------



## thefam

LonelyGirl1963 said:


> Haha Conan you kinky devil!!!>


That's exactly what I thought when I read it! Hey if it was me, that would work too.


----------



## ConanHub

LOL!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## thefam

ConanHub said:


> Sexless marriages are sexually immoral marriages and I have seen and approved of divorce in those cases.
> 
> A young woman I know divorced her husband, with the blessing of the church and full.biblical support for her circumstances, because her husband stopped having sex with her.
> 
> Not just for a short period of time.
> 
> *The actual scripture states sexual immorality, not adultery specifically although adultery certainly fits.
> *_Posted via Mobile Device_


 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of *fornication*, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

I'm not near a concordance so I don't know what the Greek for "fornication" is in this scripture. But I always took fornication as literally meaning sex with someone other than your spouse. ICBW.


----------



## ConanHub

Bugged said:


> Divorce IS one of the options in these situations.
> It's not clear to me apart from spanking (I hope it's a joke..) and her 'acting like a wife'...what your solution would be?
> If she COULD act like a wife whe would, don't you think?
> You think feeling like that is _fun_?


Only half joking about the spanking. It has worked wonders, on occasion, for Mrs. Conan.

I'm positive she doesn't like her situation but I believe her approach is lazy at best. Her priorities need realigned and that requires work.

Not knowing what her husband has to say is limiting but she is certainly prioritizing other issues over her relationship with her husband.

She apparently doesn't fully realize how destructive her behavior is to a marriage she says she enjoys and a husband she values.

I have dealt with sexual dysfunction in both men and women. When the people are healthy, it is all mental and emotional. Totally fixable.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## thefam

Bugged said:


> Divorce IS one of the options in these situations.
> *It's not clear to me apart from spanking (I hope it's a joke..)* and her 'acting like a wife'...what your solution would be?
> If she COULD act like a wife whe would, don't you think?
> You think feeling like that is _fun_?


LOL, @Bugged, step away from the kink!

By the way, what is 3d?


----------



## ConanHub

Just checked and you are correct concerning the Mathew passage.

I am confident that I could put together a better biblical argument for divorce over a sexless marriage than can be countered in the faith and spirituality forum.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## thefam

ConanHub said:


> Just checked and you are correct concerning the Mathew passage.
> 
> I am confident that I could put together a better biblical argument for divorce over a sexless marriage than can be countered *in the faith and spirituality forum.
> *_Posted via Mobile Device_


I'm sure you could. I never, ever venture into those troubled waters of TAM that is the faith and spirituality forum. I'm sure I would be banned within a couple of hours.


----------



## ConanHub

Just sayin. We are thread jacking. I think....
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## thefam

Oh wait, @ConanHub did you mean "Relationships and Spirituality" or "Politics and Religion"? In any case I never go on either one. I think I will check out "Relationships and Spirituality" though. Don't know why I never have.


----------



## ConanHub

thefam said:


> Oh wait, @ConanHub did you mean "Relationships and Spirituality" or "Politics and Religion"? In any case I never go on either one. I think I will check out "Relationships and Spirituality" though. Don't know why I never have.


Yeah. That is the one. LOL! I almost never go there either.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## ConanHub

Bugged said:


> please..not the red pill again...I can't take it anymore...
> 
> 
> lazy? She said she tried all that was suggested...
> 
> 
> work and kids are 'issues'?
> 
> 
> 
> How.
> I'm very interested given my situation


I'm assuming you have a thread talking about your situation?

Give me some time and I will read it.
_Posted via Mobile Device_ P.S. I am very alpha in a good way and despise pua techniques. My wife adores me and likes being carried around the house like a football occasionally.


----------



## ConanHub

In my experience two people work on their issues or just continue to suffer until something stupid happens. Usually an affair.

I pull no punches talking to people about their marriages.

A hall pass is destruction.

The wife in the OP wants a friendship not a marriage.

She thinks it will be ok in several years but she is wrong.

Their marriage will deteriorate for lack of priority and attention.

If her husband had little drive it might last for a while but would still falter.

Sexless marriages are not healthy despite any outward appearance.

She is possibly in more danger of an affair than her husband.

She does not direct her feelings so they direct her.

Without focusing on her husband as a desirable male, there is a void that will start to itch. Another man will eventually tickle her just right and she will find herself in a very compromising position at least emotionally.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

ConanHub said:


> In my experience two people work on their issues or just continue to suffer until something stupid happens. Usually an affair.
> 
> I pull no punches talking to people about their marriages.
> 
> A hall pass is destruction.
> 
> The wife in the OP wants a friendship not a marriage.
> 
> She thinks it will be ok in several years but she is wrong.
> 
> Their marriage will deteriorate for lack of priority and attention.
> 
> If her husband had little drive it might last for a while but would still falter.
> 
> Sexless marriages are not healthy despite any outward appearance.
> 
> She is possibly in more danger of an affair than her husband.
> 
> She does not direct her feelings so they direct her.
> 
> Without focusing on her husband as a desirable male, there is a void that will start to itch. Another man will eventually tickle her just right and she will find herself in a very compromising position at least emotionally.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I think Dug would say you are looking at this from a male perspective. But she is not male.

If you want to solve the problem, I think you need to consider it from her pov.


----------



## ConanHub

jld said:


> I think Dug would say you are looking at this from a male perspective. But she is not male.
> 
> If you want to solve the problem, I think you need to consider it from her pov.


I have the unfortunate tendency to look at situations from a mostly results oriented view.

Hearing from her husband would help but honestly she has expressed her point of view just fine. I don't need to read between the lines with her.

I predict destruction in a few years unless something changes in their dynamic.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## GettingIt_2

Hmmm. I was that woman for ten years. My husband stuck by my side and continued working his ass off at his job and as a father and continued to try and engage me and continued to try and make me understand that sex was more than just a physical need. 

Then one day i realized how much I was missing out on by refusing to listen to HIS heart. By refusing to believe there was any way but my way. 

One person can carry a marriage in service to the other person whether it be out of duty or out of love or our of fear for the alternative. But a marriage in which each person understands and serves the unique needs of their partner--especially needs that they do not themselves have--has more depth and richness than one in which the gift of intimacy flows only one way. 

Intimacy can be hard work. Some people are willing to accept the gift without giving it in return. Some are willing to offer it, but fear receiving it. When it flows both ways, the full potential of an emotional and physical relationship is realized. 

I feel sorry for that woman, too. But not because she is tapped out with work and kids. I feel sorry for her because she's wasting time. I'll never get back the years I wasted. But at least I was lucky enough to have a husband who stuck around until I figured things out. She might not be so lucky. 

For the record, and frankly speaking, spankings sort me out like nothing else. Women like me do exist.


----------



## soccermom2three

Getting It, I so agree with you. I also feel like I wasted so much time and also feel very lucky regarding my husband. If I could, I would go back in time and kick myself in the butt. That's what I want to do to some of the young women posting in the comments on that blog too.


----------



## GettingIt_2

soccermom2three said:


> Getting It, I so agree with you. I also feel like I wasted so much time and also feel very lucky regarding my husband. If I could, I would go back in time and kick myself in the butt. That's what I want to do to some of the young women posting in the comments on that blog too.


Yes and I think there is too much "rah rah women" mentality going on between women. I'm all for women having every right to choose how to live their lives, but mocking (or shaming) the honestly expressed emotional pain of a spouse is not empowerment. It's cruel and it's weak. 

It's not just women. Men are capable of the same behavior.


----------



## EllisRedding

jld said:


> I think Dug would say you are looking at this from a male perspective. But she is not male.
> 
> If you want to solve the problem, I think you need to consider it from her pov.


I have looked at it from the female POV as I have dealt with a similar issue recently. The fact of the matter, she $hit on the sanctity of marriage by telling him to go have an affair (and even then she made it conditional). In her article she knows she will be able to pull in a lot of women b/c many have gone through very similar situations/feelings, and with that she presents her actions as acceptable (which they are not unless a) she wants to crush her husband or b) she wants to drive him to a divorce.


----------



## EllisRedding

soccermom2three said:


> Getting It, I so agree with you. I also feel like I wasted so much time and also feel very lucky regarding my husband. If I could, I would go back in time and kick myself in the butt. That's what I want to do to some of the young women posting in the comments on that blog too.


Agreed, looking back I am kicking myself at the time my wife and I wasted. I don't blame her for this as it takes two to tango. That was a big reason why I decided that we needed to get things sorted out ASAP.


----------



## Wazza

Bugged said:


> @ConanHub..I'd rather not threadjack...
> 
> In my experience, the options iin these cases are:
> 
> 1. hall pass (rarely works)
> 2.celibacy (rarely works)
> 3.Divorce (works)
> 
> In yours?


Why is making an effort to meet his needs to an extent, even though it is not what she would choose, not on the list?


----------



## jld

EllisRedding said:


> I have looked at it from the female POV as I have dealt with a similar issue recently. The fact of the matter, she $hit on the sanctity of marriage by telling him to go have an affair (and even then she made it conditional). In her article she knows she will be able to pull in a lot of women b/c many have gone through very similar situations/feelings, and with that she presents her actions as acceptable (which they are not unless a) she wants to crush her husband or b) she wants to drive him to a divorce.


Hmm. Maybe I can't relate because I do not have a husband who can be crushed or driven to a divorce. He is just not that weak. 

Sorry, just do not feel sorry for the man here. He has potential he could tap into. 

And if he truly does not, if he is completely dependent on her for his happiness, and she cannot fulfill him, then they may be better off divorced.


----------



## jld

Wazza said:


> Why is making an effort to meet his needs to an extent, even though it is not what she would choose, not on the list?


I think the concern is developing resentment.


----------



## EllisRedding

jld said:


> EllisRedding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have looked at it from the female POV as I have dealt with a similar issue recently. The fact of the matter, she $hit on the sanctity of marriage by telling him to go have an affair (and even then she made it conditional). In her article she knows she will be able to pull in a lot of women b/c many have gone through very similar situations/feelings, and with that she presents her actions as acceptable (which they are not unless a) she wants to crush her husband or b) she wants to drive him to a divorce.
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm. Maybe I can't relate because I do not have a husband who can be crushed or driven to a divorce. He is just not that weak.
> 
> Sorry, just do not feel sorry for the man here. He has potential he could tap into.
> 
> And if he truly does not, if he is completely dependent on her for his happiness, and she cannot fulfill him, then they may be better off divorced.
Click to expand...

I am sorry, but stating your husband is not weak because of this is (which implies any guy who would be affected by this sitiation is weak) just flat out arrogant.


----------



## jld

EllisRedding said:


> I am sorry, but stating your husband is not weak because of this is (which implies any guy who would be affected by this sitiation is weak) just flat out arrogant.


Well, that is your interpretation. I think sitting around moping and hoping his wife will take pity on him is weak. Some wives will, and that is fine. Some women are willing to carry the man. I would just be totally turned off by that.


----------



## Wazza

jld said:


> I think the concern is developing resentment.


I get it, and I am not unsympathetic. But the guy can also develop resentment. If you want a list of all options, making some degree of effort has to be one.


----------



## EllisRedding

jld said:


> EllisRedding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am sorry, but stating your husband is not weak because of this is (which implies any guy who would be affected by this sitiation is weak) just flat out arrogant.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that is your interpretation. I think sitting around moping and hoping his wife will take pity on him is weak. Some wives will, and that is fine. Some women are willing to carry the man. I would just be totally turned off by that.
Click to expand...

I don't think it is an interpretation, it is clearly what you are stating. I can see why you see no fault with this woman since you come across as cold and selfish as her if I am being honest. But I get it, she has no responsibility in her marriage ...


----------



## jld

Wazza said:


> I get it, and I am not unsympathetic. But the guy can also develop resentment. If you want a list of all options, making some degree of effort has to be one.


Wazza, my own marriage has never been sexless. I firmly believe that men need sex, and regularly. I would not risk doing what she has done.

But my guy is not needy or mopey, either. I have to believe that would significantly impact my attraction, if he were.

I don't think Dug has any resentment towards me. I don't feel it anyway.

I just asked him. He said he doesn't.

Dug and I both think the man needs to be a leader. He needs to seek to understand the wife, and then seek to be understood. I think there is much her husband could be doing to change things. Have you read Anon1111's thread?

To be fair, she could change things, too. But doing so out of a sense of burden, of guilt, may not be the healthiest way. That is why I would encourage him to inspire her. I don't think anyone's guilting her would be nearly as effective as her husband's genuinely inspiring her.


----------



## jld

EllisRedding said:


> I don't think it is an interpretation, it is clearly what you are stating. I can see why you see no fault with this woman since you come across as cold and selfish as her if I am being honest. But I get it, she has no responsibility in her marriage ...


Lol! My husband just got a laugh out of the idea I am cold and selfish! I am anything but a cold wife, Ellis! 

We are all interpreting each other here. We cannot read each other's hearts with complete accuracy, or maybe any accuracy at all.

She will likely pay a price for what she is doing, Ellis. Unless her husband chooses to step up and show leadership, she may lose the marriage. But right now, she probably feels too overwhelmed by those kids to care. We all only have so much energy.


----------



## Wazza

jld said:


> Wazza, my own marriage has never been sexless. I firmly believe that men need sex, and regularly. I would not risk doing what she has done.
> 
> But my guy is not needy or mopey, either. I have to believe that would significantly impact my attraction, if he were.
> 
> I don't think Dug has any resentment towards me. I don't feel it anyway.
> 
> I just asked him. He said he doesn't.
> 
> Dug and I both think the man needs to be a leader. He needs to seek to understand the wife, and then seek to be understood. I think there is much her husband could be doing to change things. Have you read Anon1111's thread?
> 
> To be fair, she could change things, too. But doing so out of a sense of burden, of guilt, may not be the healthiest way. That is why I would encourage him to inspire her. I don't think anyone's guilting her would be nearly as effective as her husband's genuinely inspiring her.


We agree she could change things.


----------



## jld

Wazza said:


> We agree she could change things.


Do you see him as powerless, Wazza? 

Is that fundamentally how the men here, and perhaps some of the women, too, view him?


----------



## SurpriseMyself

pavlizhec said:


> it was stupid to make it in the the first place.


It may have been a stupid offer, but how many men do a similar thing and think nothing of it? Want emotional connection through anything other than sex? That's why my wife has girlfriends, or her mom, or her sister. If she really needs to work on something, she can see a therapist. See, I'm a guy. I put food on the table and watch sports and talk shop. I don't "connect" like that. I don't "share my feelings" and I don't really want her to "share" hers because, like I said, that's what other women are for.

And there you have it. The double standard. 

I know this well because that is what my H expects from me. I have friends to talk to, and if I really need to then I can see a therapist.


----------



## jld

ocotillo said:


> Yes and some people need it. Even among those who don't, everyone gets stuck in a rut now and then and may need help to get out of it.
> 
> With respect though, jld, I think you're trying to empathize with this woman, which is a good thing, but you may be projecting to much of yourself into that mental model, which is not necessarily an accurate thing.
> 
> You speak of the pressures of her job. Susan Hosseini is currently a freelance writer/blogger, apparently working from home. Writing articles like the one under discussion on this thread is her job.
> 
> You speak of pressure to have sex, which is not something Ms. Hosseini has directly attributed to her husband. What she has expressed is an internal pressure to be all things to everyone, which is a standard nobody can hope to measure up to.
> 
> You speak of the need for her husband to lead and inspire her. Yet Ms. Hosseini has said next to nothing about what her husband has done or not done. What she has said is that the changes in their relationship have been entirely changes in herself and that she is a deeply introverted person who often simply wants to be left alone.
> 
> On the flip side of the coin, the hurtful things she is doing don't seem to enter into your mental picture. This is woman who tweets things like, "Can it be Mother's Day again? I'm not a fan of this whole Father's Day thing." This is a woman who told the father of her children that she doesn't care if he goes off and has sex with another woman. This is a woman speaks of the expletives her small children are picking up from her as if it were something funny.
> 
> I'm not deliberately trying to be argumentative. I just don't understand. Does a woman "own" her behavior or is her husband ultimately responsible for it?


Sorry to not have responded to this earlier, ocotillo. Certainly, I may be too sympathetic to her. Others may be too sympathetic to her husband. Hard to judge that accurately.

We all pay a price, or reap a reward, for our behavior, whether we "own" it or not. She may lose her marriage. She may not care. She may care too late. Not really sure how this will turn out, myself.

She may have a bad character. Her husband may be better off without her. Again, hard to know. 

Did someone mention these posts might be a way to gain attention for her blog? The more extreme the posts, the more publicity the blog gets? 

My point is that it is hard to have little kids, at least for some of us. And some of us find what we consider a needy man a turnoff. 

Other women are just fine with a man like that, and may not define him that way at all. There is someone for everyone, as the saying goes.


----------



## EllisRedding

jld said:


> Lol! My husband just got a laugh out of the idea I am cold and selfish! I am anything but a cold wife, Ellis!
> 
> We are all interpreting each other here. We cannot read each other's hearts with complete accuracy, or maybe any accuracy at all.
> 
> She will likely pay a price for what she is doing, Ellis. Unless her husband chooses to step up and show leadership, she may lose the marriage. But right now, she probably feels too overwhelmed by those kids to care. We all only have so much energy.


I will say jld, my post was not meant to insult you and apologize if it came across blunt, I was just stating how I read your posts (which as we both know it is very easy to interpret things differently when relying solely on a forum).

I guess I just don't follow your POV as I see contradiction. You discuss equality between male and female, but it seems like with relationships it is selective equality. It shows as an out for the female (hey, if things aren't working it is because he is not igniting my passion or inspiring me) and a burden on the male (if things aren't working it is his fault and his job to make it work). I also see it as showing the female as weak, she is unable to inspire and lead, she requires a male to do so.



Lila said:


> Could you clarify the bolded statement? Do mean that it is unacceptable for her to share the stresses of motherhood, her lack of sexual libido, and 'faking it' with other women? Or are you saying that her offer of a hall pass was unacceptable?


The hall pass. I have stated often that I do understand where she is coming from, my wife and I worked through similar. I have an issue with her hall pass suggested. My wife and I take infidelity very seriously, so for me the fact that she offered infidelity to her husband as a solution is quite insulting, a lack of respect to both her husband and her marriage.

I have no issues with and applaud the author for posting what she is going through since I know first hand this is common, but using it as justification is another thing ...


----------



## jld

EllisRedding said:


> I will say jld, my post was not meant to insult you and apologize if it came across blunt, I was just stating how I read your posts (which as we both know it is very easy to interpret things differently when relying solely on a forum).


No big deal, Ellis. If we cannot say what we really think, what is the point of a forum? 



> I guess I just don't follow your POV as I see contradiction. *You discuss equality between male and female,* but it seems like with relationships it is selective equality. It shows as an out for the female (hey, if things aren't working it is because he is not igniting my passion or inspiring me) and a burden on the male (if things aren't working it is his fault and his job to make it work). I also see it as showing the female as weak, she is unable to inspire and lead, she requires a male to do so.


Where have I done the bolded? Please feel free to point out something I have written along those lines, as I do not recall having done so. 

Some women are the leaders in their relationships. They are happy to do so. Some men need women to be leaders. Again, as the saying goes, there is someone for everyone.


----------



## EllisRedding

jld said:


> No big deal, Ellis. If we cannot say what we really think, what is the point of a forum?
> 
> 
> 
> Where have I done the bolded? Please feel free to point out something I have written along those lines, as I do not recall having done so.
> 
> Some women are the leaders in their relationships. They are happy to do so. Some men need women to be leaders. Again, as the saying goes, there is someone for everyone.


I thought you had posted in the past that you consider yourself a feminist in the sense that men and women should be equal. If I misstated this or confused you with another poster I apologize.


----------



## jld

EllisRedding said:


> I thought you had posted in the past that you consider yourself a feminist in the sense that men and women should be equal. If I misstated this or confused you with another poster I apologize.


No need to apologize. I do consider myself a feminist. To me, feminism is just respecting women. If you respect women, imo you are a feminist.


----------



## EllisRedding

jld said:


> No need to apologize. I do consider myself a feminist. To me, feminism is just respecting women. If you respect women, imo you are a feminist.


Gotcha, thanks for clarifying.


----------



## GettingIt_2

I'm wondering if the different attitudes expressed here reflect varying comfort with accepting intimacy from a partner. 

There was a time when I probably felt more like jld, and resisted my husband's occasional expressions of emotional want and need. When we reconciled after our years of sexual disconnect, it was great for me because I had all the emotional outlet I wanted, but I still held him at arms length. I let my fear lead me. It was fear of true intimacy, fear of a bond that would expose me to what I didn't know about my own husband--- a man who I've been with for 25 years. It felt like I was standing on a precipice. What if I saw something I didn't like? And, like the fear jld expresses, what if I lost attraction for him? All those years we had struggled because I had lost my desire. What if it evaporated again? What if I saw something that , God forbid, made ME feel insecure? What if I saw something that turned my notion of who he is upside down? What if I couldn't handle it? I wanted him to take care of me, I didn't want to take care of him! 

When I sensed he might be expressing an emotional need, I deflected. I told myself (and did my best to make it clear to him) that it was behavior unbecoming of a dominant man, and I sent him away to ponder and puzzle his feelings out alone. Here was a man who had accepted my trust, had accepted my heart, warts and all. Here was a man who always came back to hold me, no matter what I showed him. He took all the messy emotions I dished out to him and he dealt with them with love. And I steadfastly refused to do the same for him. 

The growth in our intimacy began to stall and that made me reevaluate my fears. We had come so far, was I going to settle for what we had? Could we go deeper? I could stay in my comfort zone and hide from my fears, or I could tear down that last wall. He had accepted all of me, could I do the same for him?

It was embarrassingly easy. He really isn't that emotionally complex. He gets tired and wants a friendly face and some cheery words (or a blowjob or whatever) to give him a boost. He works hard and puts a lot of effort into providing for our family and enjoys a "thank you" (or a blowjob or whatever) to let him know he's appreciated. And sometimes he just needs time and space ( hold the blowjob, but he'll take a rain check) to relax, regroup and figure things out. 

A marriage in which intimacy flows only one way might be right for some couples, but I suspect that in most long term, committed relationships, much pleasure and security is derived from feeling like your partner really understands you down to the core. It's often harder for men to express their needs because of a fear of being perceived as weak either from society or their own wives, but I can attest that it's only deepened our bond. I was relieved and gratified to discover that I genuinely enjoy knowing what makes him tick, that he's every bit Domly and attractive, and that I feel even more secure, even more safe, now that the fear of the unknown has been put to rest. He trusts me-- only me-- to see this part of him. It's my honor, not my burden, and it feels so much like love.


----------



## EllisRedding

GettingIt said:


> It's often harder for men to express their needs because of a fear of being perceived as weak either from society or their own wives, but I can attest that it's only deepened our bond.


Great post GettingIT :grin2:

The part of your post I quoted above, that is where the blogger misses the mark. Her reaction to his husband's needs is to tell him to go find another woman. How does this encourage him to open up to her??? It is really just meant to put him down.


----------



## GettingIt_2

It's where a lot of people miss the mark Ellis. We all hold ourselves back out of fear of rejection. It hurts intimacy. Sometimes holding back is warranted. It takes unusual trust from both parties to achieve two way intimacy. That's why I say I feel sorry for women who keep their husbands at arms length when it comes to expression of emotional need. They don't see it for the gift it is, they only see the risks. Many times the risks are legit, and it's for each person to judge for themselves. All I'm saying is that I took the plunge and am so glad I did. 

It's not just women who guard against receiving emotional intimacy. It's not a cut and dried gender thing.


----------



## Wazza

jld said:


> Do you see him as powerless, Wazza?
> 
> Is that fundamentally how the men here, and perhaps some of the women, too, view him?


No one is powerless.


----------



## jld

Wazza said:


> No one is powerless.


What would you like to see him do? Anything?


----------



## Wazza

jld said:


> What would you like to see him do? Anything?


That's up to him.


----------



## ocotillo

jld said:


> Certainly, I may be too sympathetic to her. Others may be too sympathetic to her husband. Hard to judge that accurately.


Yes. The problem for all of us on this thread is the human tendency to fill the gaps in our knowledge with details from our own lives.

You've spoken of the need for leadership in this marriage, but at the same time, there are plenty of educated postmodern women out there who would find that idea deeply offensive and would spin the very things that you respect in your husband as personality flaws. 

My own personal hangup is being the captain of your fate and counting the cost of major life decisions before you make them. (With marriage and children being at or near the top of the list) Being resentful of the needs of others strikes me as a horrible, horrible way to live, but maybe I'm not being as empathetic as I should be here.


----------



## jld

ocotillo said:


> Yes. The problem for all of us on this thread is the human tendency to fill the gaps in our knowledge with details from our own lives.
> 
> You've spoken of the need for leadership in this marriage, but at the same time, there are plenty of educated postmodern women out there who would find that idea deeply offensive and would spin the very things that you respect in your husband as personality flaws.
> 
> My own personal hangup is being the captain of your fate and counting the cost of major life decisions before you make them. (With marriage and children being at or near the top of the list) Being resentful of the needs of others strikes me as a horrible, horrible way to live, but maybe I'm not being as empathetic as I should be here.


You understand that some might feel he is not being mindful of her needs, too, right?

I think the basic disagreement on the thread is Who should go first? Who should take the initiative to fix things? Who should be the leader?
_Posted via Mobile Device_
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

Bugged said:


> Because she said she tried it all..everything that was suggested to her...she even started drinking wine..so the question is (again): was she supposed to get herself a drinking problem?
> I was getting a *codeine addiction* at the time I was forcing myself to 'fake it till you make it'...just saying...


Yeah, I am not sold on that fake it advice. I think she would be better off having a heart to heart with her husband. It would be great if he would initiate one.
_Posted via Mobile Device_
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## EllisRedding

jld said:


> You understand that some might feel he is not being mindful of her needs, too, right?
> 
> I think the basic disagreement on the thread is Who should go first? Who should take the initiative to fix things? Who should be the leader?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Part of the problem is from the article we don't really know how much they have talked about the issues and really just getting only her POV, so of course we interject our own experiences. I don't think it necessarily requires anyone to take the lead. They should sit down, talk openly/honestly about their needs and if they are being met. If not being met, what do they believe is the cause. Once they have these listed out then start working on what can be done to correct, or lessen the burden. Some of these may fall on him, some on her, or some on both together. If they can come to an agreement on a plan, then it is a matter of executing, and holding each other accountable. If they both really care about each other and their marriage, they will fight to make things work. Sure it may not be easy. Sure, your marriage may not go back to how it was pre kids. That is not an excuse though to stop trying, unless your marriage really means very little for you.

The problem is, at least from the tone of the article, she has accepted their "new" marriage, this is what it is, so deal with it and hopefully one day maybe 1, 2 5 years down the road who knows .... One of the most common recommendations you see made on TAM is the importance of making time for one another, yet she clearly states she cannot get down with date nights. She listed travel above being romantically available (it is unclear, is she talking about personal travel, is this work related, etc...). All I see are excuses why she cannot be available to her husband (which according to her there are a bazillion of them). Maybe he has made himself unavailable to her, we can't say since we probably don't get the full story. Of course encouraging infidelity (with conditions) is just the icing on the cake...


----------



## ocotillo

jld said:


> You understand that some might feel he is not being mindful of her needs, too, right?


Some clearly feel that way, but based on what? 




jld said:


> I think the basic disagreement on the thread is Who should go first? Who should take the initiative to fix things? Who should be the leader?


One consistent lesson of TAM is that the person being "wronged" in a relationship is always, always, always the one who has roll up their sleeves and try to fix things. 

This can be a woman dealing with an emotionally distant husband too wrapped up in his own little egocentric shell to understand, let alone care about her needs or it can be a man dealing with a sexually distant wife who can't quite comprehend that even an ocotillo can't go forever without water. :smile2:


----------



## Buddy400

GettingIt said:


> It was embarrassingly easy. He really isn't that emotionally complex. He gets tired and wants a friendly face and some cheery words (or a blowjob or whatever) to give him a boost. He works hard and puts a lot of effort into providing for our family and enjoys a "thank you" (or a blowjob or whatever) to let him know he's appreciated. And sometimes he just needs time and space ( hold the blowjob, but he'll take a rain check) to relax, regroup and figure things out.


You've been main-lining the secret truth of the universe.

I usually don't like to focus on this, since I'd be giving my debate opponent an easy target. But, never-the-less, that's how it is.


----------



## Buddy400

Lila said:


> I'm not here to defend the woman, but I read all of her tweets and blog entries to be one huge vent. She's sharing her deepest, darkest, most un-P.C thoughts with other women, and I think it's wonderful. Here's why.
> 
> Many women live with a perfection stigma that, like it or not, is commonly pushed on us by culture and society. We must put everyone else's happiness before our own. Our children, our husbands, our extended family even. If it's not working out for the wife/mother, too bad. We're expected to suck it up buttercup....and do it with a smile.
> 
> This author states in plain English what many of her readers secretly think but would never dare express out loud for fear of being judged as selfish, manipulative, horrible mothers or wives, or worse......defective, worthless, incapable, or mentally ill.
> 
> Her blogs are not intended to be taken as marriage counseling advice. They are what they are, a brief view into the non-P.C. parts of a woman's brain.


I VERY much get what you're saying about the need to know that one's not the only person on the planet with these thoughts.

But there's a line between "you're not alone, lot's of people share these problems" and saying "You're right, no need to do anything about it". The proper tone would accomplish the former without implying the latter. I don't see that tone in her writings.


----------



## jld

EllisRedding said:


> Part of the problem is from the article we don't really know how much they have talked about the issues and really just getting only her POV, so of course we interject our own experiences. I don't think it necessarily requires anyone to take the lead. They should sit down, talk openly/honestly about their needs and if they are being met. If not being met, what do they believe is the cause. Once they have these listed out then start working on what can be done to correct, or lessen the burden. Some of these may fall on him, some on her, or some on both together. If they can come to an agreement on a plan, then it is a matter of executing, and holding each other accountable. If they both really care about each other and their marriage, they will fight to make things work. Sure it may not be easy. Sure, your marriage may not go back to how it was pre kids. That is not an excuse though to stop trying, unless your marriage really means very little for you.
> 
> The problem is, at least from the tone of the article, she has accepted their "new" marriage, this is what it is, so deal with it and hopefully one day maybe 1, 2 5 years down the road who knows .... One of the most common recommendations you see made on TAM is the importance of making time for one another, yet she clearly states she cannot get down with date nights. She listed travel above being romantically available (it is unclear, is she talking about personal travel, is this work related, etc...). All I see are excuses why she cannot be available to her husband (which according to her there are a bazillion of them). Maybe he has made himself unavailable to her, we can't say since we probably don't get the full story. Of course encouraging infidelity (with conditions) is just the icing on the cake...


That hall pass comment was definitely unwise. 

I only read that one post. I don't think it is enough to make a judgment of her character.


----------



## jld

ocotillo said:


> Some clearly feel that way, but based on what?


Their own experiences? We all project to some degree.



> One consistent lesson of TAM is that the person being "wronged" in a relationship is always, always, always the one who has roll up their sleeves and try to fix things.
> 
> This can be a woman dealing with *an emotionally distant husband too wrapped up in his own little egocentric shell to understand, let alone care about her needs *or it can be a man dealing with a sexually distant wife who can't quite comprehend that even an ocotillo can't go forever without water. :smile2:


I agree that the one complaining needs to fix things. That is why I am looking at her husband.

Are you talking about Dug in the bolded?


----------



## ocotillo

jld said:


> Are you talking about Dug in the bolded?


Not at all. I think highly of both of you.

We had a thread  fairly recently that was similar to this thread inasmuch as it was also based on an article published on the internet.

The author of that article was a male marriage counselor who stated that emotionally distant husbands very often play a role in the "walk away wife" phenomenon, which is something that I have no trouble believing.

Personally, I think the two articles (This one and that one) are an interesting study in contrasts. Both seem to revolve around the egocentrism of one partner.


----------



## farsidejunky

ocotillo said:


> Personally, I think the two articles (This one and that one) are an interesting study in contrasts. Both seem to revolve around the egocentrism of one partner.


I don't think it is possible for this point to be overstated.


----------



## jld

ocotillo said:


> Not at all. I think highly of both of you.
> 
> We had a thread fairly recently that was similar to this thread inasmuch as it was also based on an article published on the internet.
> 
> The author of that article was a male marriage counselor who stated that emotionally distant husbands very often play a role in the "walk away wife" phenomenon, which is something that I have no trouble believing.
> 
> Personally, I think the two articles (This one and that one) are an interesting study in contrasts. Both seem to revolve around the egocentrism of one partner.


Could you link it, please?


----------



## Wazza

Bugged said:


> Wazza said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is making an effort to meet his needs to an extent, even though it is not what she would choose, not on the list?
> 
> 
> 
> Because she said she tried it all..everything that was suggested to her...she even started drinking wine..so the question is (again): was she supposed to get herself a drinking problem?
> I was getting a *codeine addiction* at the time I was forcing myself to 'fake it till you make it'...just saying...
Click to expand...

Is there no middle ground between faking it and celibacy?


----------



## Wazza

jld said:


> I agree that the one complaining needs to fix things. That is why I am looking at her husband.


You don't see any element of complaint in her words?

What is wrong with them working on solutions together?


----------



## jld

Wazza said:


> You don't see any element of complaint in her words?
> 
> What is wrong with them working on solutions together?


He's the one who wants the change. Ideally, they would work on it together. But if he wants it, it is likely going to be on him to get it going.


----------



## morituri

jld said:


> He's the one who wants the change. Ideally, they would work on it together. But if he wants it, it is likely going to be on him to get it going.


Yes and if and when he makes a choice to resolve it and she isn't too thrilled about it, then it will be on her to come up with a solution to resolve her issue.


----------



## ocotillo

jld said:


> Could you link it, please?


I've edited the post to make the link clickable. 




jld said:


> He's the one who wants the change. Ideally, they would work on it together. But if he wants it, it is likely going to be on him to get it going.


I agree, but that brings us to the million dollar question. 

How? 

She's already done an end-run around him with the hall pass idea. 

He can try explaining a concept that is obviously alien to her (i.e. That it is not about sex _per se_) but that can very easily be construed as emotionally, "needy." 

To further complicate things, if she's anything like other women in her demographic (Political/Social Liberal -- B.A. in English with a minor in Journalism) she's going to view an overt attempt to lead as blatantly patriarchal.


----------



## jld

ocotillo said:


> I've edited the post to make the link clickable.


Okay, just saw it. Thank you.



> I agree, but that brings us to the million dollar question.
> 
> How?
> 
> She's already done an end-run around him with the hall pass idea.
> 
> He can try explaining a concept that is obviously alien to her (i.e. That it is not about sex _per se_) but that can very easily be construed as emotionally, "needy."
> 
> To further complicate things, if she's anything like other women in her demographic (Political/Social Liberal -- B.A. in English with a minor in Journalism) she's going to view an overt attempt to lead as blatantly patriarchal.


Don't worry about the patriarchal part. Approach her with sincerity, a genuine desire to understand. Respect her. Listen to what she says. Start meeting her needs. And once in a while, seduce her.  Read Anon1111's thread for ideas.

Quit worrying about that hall pass. Start looking beyond her words to the emotions behind them.

No begging. No whininess. No wounded puppy eyes. My gosh, I would never touch a man like that. Would not even want to be in the same room, much less the same bed. Could not even look at him.

But some women are okay with that kind of guy. Again, there's someone for everyone out there.


----------



## ocotillo

jld said:


> Read Anon1111's thread for ideas...


That's nice of you, but my interest in this thread is simply from having walked in this man's shoes.

My wife and I waited for about 9 1/2 years to have children and we were as happy as clams during that time.

Her libido switched off almost the instant she conceived and did not come back until around the time the youngest was graduating from high school. All told, it was about a 28 year dry-spell. Today, she is the HD partner and I have a terrible time maintaining any interest in the subject. 

Speaking from experience, this can be a very intractable problem. Sometimes I get upset at hints of stupidity or weakness, (Somewhere in my closet full of junk I have a picture of myself holding both back tires of a 1949 Chevrolet Thriftmaster stepside off of the ground...) but maybe I'm wrong. Maybe there was something I could have done at the time to fix the problem.


----------



## jld

ocotillo said:


> That's nice of you, but my interest in this thread is simply from having walked in this man's shoes.
> 
> My wife and I waited for about 9 1/2 years to have children and we were as happy as clams during that time.
> 
> He libido switched off almost the instant she conceived and did not come back until around the time the youngest was graduating from high school. All told, it was about a 28 year dry-spell. Today, she is the HD partner and I have a terrible time maintaining any interest in the subject.
> 
> Speaking from experience, this can be a very intractable problem. Sometimes I get upset at hints of stupidity or weakness, (Somewhere in my closet full of junk I have a picture of myself holding both back tires of a 1949 Chevrolet Thriftmaster stepside off of the ground...) but maybe I'm wrong. Maybe there was something I could have done at the time to fix the problem.


I am sorry if you are hurting, ocotillo. 

It could be that some women just biologically dry up, so to speak, and there is nothing that can be done. 

It was not that way for me, and imo, Dug had a lot to do with that. I try to offer my thoughts based on that.


----------



## Wazza

jld said:


> He's the one who wants the change. Ideally, they would work on it together. But if he wants it, it is likely going to be on him to get it going.


He doesn't want a change. He wants continuity. She is making a change, unilaterally. And while her feelings are reasonable, the change she has articulated is not.


----------



## jld

Wazza said:


> He doesn't want a change. He wants continuity. She is making a change, unilaterally. And while her feelings are reasonable, the change she has articulated is not.


Well, he wants a change from what they have now.

Wazza, a sense of entitlement is unlikely to help him.


----------



## Wazza

Lila said:


> In my experience, there was no middle ground. I was either faking it for his benefit or he was practicing patience for mine.


To me that is a middle ground. You both knew there was a bigger picture at stake, and went some way to meet each others needs. Entirely healthy IMO. Kudos.

Does being sexual when you don't feel like it have to be "faking it"?


----------



## Buddy400

Wazza said:


> To me that is a middle ground. You both knew there was a bigger picture at stake, and went some way to meet each others needs. Entirely healthy IMO. Kudos.
> 
> Does being sexual when you don't feel like it have to be "faking it"?


There's "Faking it", where she doesn't want sex and doesn't enjoy it.

Then there's "responsive desire" where she doesn't think she wants it but actually enjoys it when it happens. But she says no because she's "not in the mood".

The situation that always bugs the crap out of me is the latter. You'd think the effort could be made to say yes in the knowledge that, most of the time, she'd enjoy it.

And, does "faking it" include doing something that you "don't mind" in order to make your husband happy? If so, is this something that a wife who claims to love you wouldn't do?


----------



## Wazza

jld said:


> Well, he wants a change from what they have now.
> 
> Wazza, a sense of entitlement is unlikely to help him.


If she holds the line too firmly, I suspect nothing will help him and the only question is the timing of the affair or divorce that follows.

Which by the way, means that she loses some of what she wants (him by her side in 15 years). All because she was too shallow to compromise.


----------



## Wazza

Lila said:


> I guess it was compromise of sorts. We were both equally resentful during that time.
> 
> 
> 
> In my case, I think so. It was very obvious to my H that I was not interested in sex until I stopped faking enjoyment.
> 
> He realized something was 'off' when I began treating it like my 10 minute metcon workout. He could tell immediately that the passion was missing. This is what prompted him to start practicing patience. He didn't like that I wasn't interested in sex but was doing it for his benefit.


Is it better now?


----------



## EllisRedding

jld said:


> *No begging. No whininess. No wounded puppy eyes. My gosh, I would never touch a man like that. Would not even want to be in the same room, much less the same bed. Could not even look at him.*
> 
> But some women are okay with that kind of guy. Again, there's someone for everyone out there.


I do agree with the bolded. However, looking at the other side of this I would have zero respect for a woman such as the Author for using something that she knew would intentionally hit him where it hurts and put into question the value of their marriage. She can enjoy all the things she wants in life ... alone, or as you put it, there's someone for everyone out there :grin2:


----------



## EllisRedding

Lila said:


> Yes, slowly but surely I started feeling like the 'old' me. It took about two years after my son's birth but everything eventually returned to our normal.
> 
> I'm not sure if stories like mine are considered "normal" but they do happen. I hope that by sharing my story, others who are in the same boat will either relate or get an understanding of what possibly goes through a woman's mind when faced with this type of situation. If nothing else, I hope it gives couples something positive to look forward to. Sex lives can improve after kids.


I would say the challenge, for the guy at least (although really it should apply to both), is to determine at what point is being patient fine and at what point does it start to become a red flag that things aren't going to get better. For me I can't really pinpoint when I got there. Things had slowly deteriorated with each kid. I was patient with my wife, really we both were as we kept hanging on to the whole "It has to get better" mentality. I think eventually this became a crutch because it became easier to just dismiss things saying it will eventually get better, before you know it days turn into months turn into years.


----------



## Wazza

Lila said:


> Yes, slowly but surely I started feeling like the 'old' me. It took about two years after my son's birth but everything eventually returned to our normal.
> 
> I'm not sure if stories like mine are considered "normal" but they do happen. I hope that by sharing my story, others who are in the same boat will either relate or get an understanding of what possibly goes through a woman's mind when faced with this type of situation. If nothing else, I hope it gives couples something positive to look forward to. Sex lives can improve after kids.


Looking back, is there anything you wish you had done differently?


----------



## jld

EllisRedding said:


> I do agree with the bolded. However, looking at the other side of this I would have zero respect for a woman such as the Author for using something that she knew would intentionally hit him where it hurts and put into question the value of their marriage. She can enjoy all the things she wants in life ... alone, or as you put it, there's someone for everyone out there :grin2:


I think both you and Wazza, as well as many others, view the man here as a victim. To me, he is being given an opportunity to grow from this challenge. It is an opportunity for him to transcend his dependence on his wife and become more cognizant of his own power of persuasion. Harnessing this power can benefit him in other areas of his life, too.

Again, I suggest he view himself as a salesperson and her as the customer. He has a quality product he wants to offer: himself. He must believe she has a need for his product.

He could start by making sure his product is not defective in any way. That will require rigorous honesty and willingness to improve. 

Secondly, he needs to thoroughly understand the needs and challenges of his customer. He cannot sit on his prior knowledge; he must be willing to update, taking all the time and exerting the effort necessary.

If he undertakes both sides of this challenge, I think he will be greatly empowered. She will feel relieved by the transformation of her husband from needy little boy to persuasive, seductive man. A win on both ends.


----------



## Wazza

jld said:


> I think both you and Wazza, as well as many others, view the man here as a victim. To me, he is being given an opportunity to grow from this challenge. It is an opportunity for him to transcend his dependence on his wife and become more cognizant of his own power of persuasion. Harnessing this power can benefit him in other areas of his life, too.
> 
> Again, I suggest he view himself as a salesperson and her as the customer. He has a quality product he wants to offer: himself. He must believe she has a need for his product.
> 
> He could start by making sure his product is not defective in any way. That will require rigorous honesty and willingness to improve.
> 
> Secondly, he needs to thoroughly understand the needs and challenges of his customer. He cannot sit on his prior knowledge; he must be willing to update, taking all the time and exerting the effort necessary.
> 
> If he undertakes both sides of this challenge, I think he will be greatly empowered. She will feel relieved by the transformation of her husband from needy little boy to persuasive, seductive man. A win on both ends.


You assume she's worth winning. If we ignore the hyperbole in her blog, and treat it as acurate, she's not.

I am incredibly amused that you see HIM as having a sense of entitlement here.


----------



## Wazza

Anon Pink said:


> IDK JLD, looking back at those years after my first...I don't think my H could have done anything at all to inspire my passion. He could have done several things to avoid my resentment, but inspiring passion....not at all likely.
> 
> She is just as much responsible for his emotions as he is to her emotions. They are accountable to each other.


Quoting this for emphasis.


----------



## jld

Wazza said:


> Quoting this for emphasis.


Someone has to be the leader, Wazza. You seem to resist the man's being the leader. I do not understand why.


----------



## jld

Wazza said:


> You assume she's worth winning. If we ignore the hyperbole in her blog, and treat it as acurate, she's not.
> 
> I am incredibly amused that you see HIM as having a sense of entitlement here.


She may not be, but he will not see his children every day if he divorces.

And he chose to marry her. He likely saw something worthwhile in her that is still there.

I do not see men as powerless and dependent on women. I also do not think their only option is to leave a woman if they do not like her behavior. And I do not think they need to run to set limits and enforce them, either. Empathy and persuasion can go far.


----------



## EllisRedding

jld said:


> I think both you and Wazza, as well as many others, view the man here as a victim. To me, he is being given an opportunity to grow from this challenge. It is an opportunity for him to transcend his dependence on his wife and become more cognizant of his own power of persuasion. Harnessing this power can benefit him in other areas of his life, too.
> 
> Again, I suggest he view himself as a salesperson and her as the customer. He has a quality product he wants to offer: himself. He must believe she has a need for his product.
> 
> He could start by making sure his product is not defective in any way. That will require rigorous honesty and willingness to improve.
> 
> Secondly, he needs to thoroughly understand the needs and challenges of his customer. He cannot sit on his prior knowledge; he must be willing to update, taking all the time and exerting the effort necessary.
> 
> If he undertakes both sides of this challenge, I think he will be greatly empowered. She will feel relieved by the transformation of her husband from needy little boy to persuasive, seductive man. A win on both ends.


Myself, Wazza, as well as others are basing much of our thoughts on the article itself. I am not saying we are not interjecting our own ideas/experiences, but it is no different than what you are doing. It would appear from her blog you view her as the victim, he has failed to meet her needs so he needs to step up to the plate to win her back. Don't get me wrong, that is fine you see it that way and you have made it clear how you see the dynamics of a relationship b/w a male and female. All I see with your approach is empowering her to act this way by shifting the blame on him. If they want the marriage to last, if she wants him by her side for the next 15 years, they BOTH have to fight for it. 

So basically she decided on her own that their marriage changed, he was the one who needs to adapt, and he is the little boy??? 

The fact of the matter, at least from my POV, she is more than valid in expressing her opinions in terms of what she is feeling. However, she comes off as selfish and cold, does not respect their marriage, and IMO not someone worth fighting for or respecting (I would at least hope her husband was ok with her posting some of the stuff she did in that article). 

Of course we can agree to disagree, but then again, what fun would the forum be if we agreed on everything :grin2:


----------



## Wazza

jld said:


> Someone has to be the leader, Wazza. You seem to resist the man's being the leader. I do not understand why.


Why must someone be the leader?


----------



## jld

EllisRedding said:


> Myself, Wazza, as well as others are basing much of our thoughts on the article itself. I am not saying we are not interjecting our own ideas/experiences, but it is no different than what you are doing. It would appear from her blog you view her as the victim, he has failed to meet her needs so he needs to step up to the plate to win her back. Don't get me wrong, that is fine you see it that way and you have made it clear how you see the dynamics of a relationship b/w a male and female. All I see with your approach is empowering her to act this way by shifting the blame on him. If they want the marriage to last, if she wants him by her side for the next 15 years, they BOTH have to fight for it.


I am not saying she is right. I am saying how I think the one who desires change could approach getting it.

Try to think past who is to blame, and focus on how to solve the problem, focusing on the one who wants the change.



> So basically she decided on her own that their marriage changed, he was the one who needs to adapt, and he is the little boy???
> 
> The fact of the matter, at least from my POV, she is more than valid in expressing her opinions in terms of what she is feeling. However, she comes off as selfish and cold, does not respect their marriage, and IMO not someone worth fighting for or respecting (I would at least hope her husband was ok with her posting some of the stuff she did in that article).
> 
> Of course we can agree to disagree, but then again, what fun would the forum be if we agreed on everything :grin2:


If you want the change, you become the protagonist. I am showing how I think he could accomplish that, without needing her to carry half. Empowering. No more dependence on her, which is where that victim feeling comes from.


----------



## jld

Wazza said:


> Why must someone be the leader?


Because someone wants the change, and begging does not seem to be working.


----------



## EllisRedding

jld said:


> I am not saying she is right. I am saying how I think the one who desires change could approach getting it.
> 
> Try to think past who is to blame, and focus on how to solve the problem, focusing on the one who wants the change.
> 
> 
> 
> If you want the change, you become the protagonist. I am showing how I think he could accomplish that, without needing her to carry half. Empowering. No more dependence on her, which is where that victim feeling comes from.


I still don't follow, she took it upon herself to change (whether right or wrong I am not necessarily debating), him wanting to get some semblance of what their marriage originally was means he is the one who desires change??? I think by saying he is the one who wants change, it makes it easy to point the finger at him as the one who needs to make sacrifices and hopefully, just hopefully, he can inspire her ... I don't buy it.


----------



## Wazza

jld said:


> Because someone wants the change, and begging does not seem to be working.


We disagree because we disagree about the basic nature of gender roles and relationship dynamics. Do you think we have anything new to say, or would we just be repeating ourselves to continue?


----------



## jld

EllisRedding said:


> I still don't follow, she took it upon herself to change (whether right or wrong I am not necessarily debating), him wanting to get some semblance of what their marriage originally was means he is the one who desires change??? I think by saying he is the one who wants change, it makes it easy to point the finger at him as the one who needs to make sacrifices and hopefully, just hopefully, he can inspire her ... I don't buy it.


Man takes a wife, man impregnates wife, man expects wife to do a good job raising child. Wife does this and loses sex drive.

Man as Leader identifies problem and follows actions I have suggested in earlier posts. Likelihood of success much better than Man as Victim model, nursing self pity and building resentment in marriage.


----------



## jld

Wazza said:


> We disagree because we disagree about the basic nature of gender roles and relationship dynamics. I think we'd just be repeating ourselves from here.


We could discuss the empowering nature of the Man as Leader model.

Man as Victim is not an empowering model.


----------



## Wazza

jld said:


> We could discuss the empowering nature of the Man as Leader model.
> 
> Man as Victim is not an empowering model.


Neither of those models does it for me. What about the woman as responsible adult model?


----------



## EllisRedding

jld said:


> Man takes a wife, man impregnates wife, man expects wife to do a good job raising child. Wife does this and loses sex drive.
> 
> Man as Leader identifies problem and follows actions I have suggested in earlier posts. Likelihood of success much better than Man as Victim model, nursing self pity and building resentment in marriage.


I would argue they are both the victims to an extent, and it needs to be a joint effort in fixing their marriage. It is not his responsibility to solely undertake this. Your model comes across more as an employer/employee relationship ...


----------



## jld

Wazza said:


> Neither of those models does it for me. What about the woman as responsible adult model?


Some men need a woman to take charge. They need a certain type of woman. And that is okay, too.


----------



## jld

EllisRedding said:


> I would argue they are both the victims to an extent, and it needs to be a joint effort in fixing their marriage. It is not his responsibility to solely undertake this. Your model comes across more as an employer/employee relationship ...


50/50 is one way to do it. But if the other half is not interested, and one person still wants to accomplish the task, it becomes incumbent on him to take responsibility for it.


----------



## Wazza

jld said:


> Some men need a woman to take charge. They need a certain type of woman. And that is okay, too.


Do you believe in the possibility of equal partnership and shared responsibility?


----------



## jld

Wazza said:


> Do you believe in the possibility of equal partnership and shared responsibility?


In theory. I think, in reality, whoever wants something more will probably be working harder on it.


----------



## EllisRedding

jld said:


> 50/50 is one way to do it. But if the other half is not interested, and one person still wants to accomplish the task, it becomes incumbent on him to take responsibility for it.


It doesn't have to be an even 50/50. It is all about responsibility and accountability, which I honestly don't see from your approach since you tend to shift everything on the guy to correct.


----------



## jld

EllisRedding said:


> It doesn't have to be an even 50/50. It is all about responsibility and accountability, which I honestly don't see from your approach since you tend to shift everything on the guy to correct.


I think husbands have a lot of influence. Gottman's research shows that. Why not use that influence in a productive way?


----------



## EllisRedding

jld said:


> I think husbands have a lot of influence. Gottman's research shows that. Why not use that influence in a productive way?


Influence and responsibility/accountability are two completely different things. Just because you can influence a situation doesn't mean this absolves the other person of any accountability.


----------



## jld

EllisRedding said:


> Influence and responsibility/accountability are two completely different things. Just because you can influence a situation doesn't mean this absolves the other person of any accountability.


I think you will get farther, at least initially, with an emphasis on influence and persuasion rather than accountability. You want to lower defenses, not raise them.


----------



## EllisRedding

jld said:


> I think you will get farther, at least initially, with an emphasis on influence and persuasion rather than accountability. You want to lower defenses, not raise them.


Why would holding someone accountable raise their defenses??? If it does, so be it, you want to be treated like an adult, act like one.


----------



## bkyln309

i didnt read through 17 pages of comments but I did read the article. I will say while she feels that way, she is delusional if she thinks that is the fix. My favorite line go have sex but dont fall in love. Right! Since men need physical intimacy to feel connection, at some point her husband is going to run off with one of his hall passes. Does she really think he is going to wait 5 years? 

She honestly is making excuses. I know this because she said when they do have sex its off the charts. Get a maid, downgrade your job, do whatever you need to do to fix your marriage if you value it. Her husband is "screaming" that he is unhappy and needs her to work with him. She is simply ignoring him. Its very sad. Her needs are not more important than his. Raising her children is not more important than being a wife to a good husband. What will she do when her children are grown and her husband is long gone? 

I lived in a sexless marriage and I can tell you it was one major factors (amongst many) that led to the destruction of the marriage. I am a single parent but I can tell you I make the time to have sex with the man that is important to me. And for those times, I dont feel in the mood, all I need is alittle encouragement and it all goes well. 

To the author of the article: if you love your husband, you will find a way to be intimate with him in and out of the bedroom. It sounds to me like both areas are lacking due to your selfishness.


----------



## jld

EllisRedding said:


> Why would holding someone accountable raise their defenses??? If it does, so be it, you want to be treated like an adult, act like one.


If I start telling you how what you are doing is wrong, and how you need to change, how does that feel?

Do you listen and react humbly? 

Or do you react defensively?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## EllisRedding

jld said:


> If I start telling you how what you are doing is wrong, and how you need to change, how does that feel?
> 
> Do you listen and react humbly?
> 
> Or do you react defensively?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


If it is coming from my spouse I would listen and discuss. How I react ultimately though would depend on how it is presented to me (i.e. is the tone condescending,etc...). My wife and I have enough respect for each other that we can sit down and discuss without having an accusatory tone. 

Once again though, you referred to him as a little boy but you are asking him to treat the author like a little girl who needs to be coddled so she doesn't get upset (seems more like a father/daughter relationship).


----------



## jld

EllisRedding said:


> If it is coming from my spouse I would listen and discuss. How I react ultimately though would depend on how it is presented to me (i.e. is the tone condescending,etc...). My wife and I have enough respect for each other that we can sit down and discuss without having an accusatory tone.
> 
> Once again though, you referred to him as a little boy but you are asking him to treat the author like a little girl who needs to be coddled so she doesn't get upset (seems more like a father/daughter relationship).


If sitting down and negotiating sex works for you, great. I think seduction works much better, but that's just me.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## EllisRedding

jld said:


> If sitting down and negotiating sex works for you, great. I think seduction works much better, but that's just me.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Yeah, each person will handle different. I wouldn't consider it sitting down to negotiate sex though, it is sitting down to discuss the issues and come up with solutions that both parties can agree to.


----------



## jld

EllisRedding said:


> Yeah, each person will handle different. I wouldn't consider it sitting down to negotiate sex though, it is sitting down to discuss the issues and come up with solutions that both parties can agree to.


But sex is the desired outcome, right? Then try to avoid defensiveness during the discussion.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## EllisRedding

jld said:


> But sex is the desired outcome, right? Then try to avoid defensiveness during the discussion.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I am sure that is one of the outcomes, there could be others as well, who knows. The point being though, as I said before, for each person to sit down and discuss where things are right and where things have gone wrong. Come up with solutions and hold each other accountable to follow through. When my wife and I talked, the focus wasn't necessarily on sex (although that was a big issue for me), it was about understanding why our marriage had gotten to the point where it was, and what we needed to do to fix it.

In a sense I think we are both saying the same thing. Where we differ, I believe both parties need to be held accountable and focus on each others needs. I believe from reading your posts you believe this falls solely on the guy, focus on her needs only (because if there is a shortcoming, it is because HE is not meeting HER needs) and hopefully she will come around. My way may work for some and not others, likewise with yours, so I wouldn't say either approach is right or wrong (although we both know deep down I am right :grin2: , j/k)


----------



## jld

My approach does not rely on her. It empowers him. It makes him independent of her reactions.

Holding your wife accountable could go very wrong. I think inspiring her and building a foundation of trust may lead to a relationship where she asks you to hold her accountable, though. That feels very different to me than what you are suggesting.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## rich84

jld said:


> But sex is the desired outcome, right? Then try to avoid defensiveness during the discussion.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_



You act like this guy can just up his game and seduce away her flat libido, children induced exhaustion, and selfishness. Maybe, for a period of time. Is that sustainable? Can he constantly give max effort while she gives nothing in return to help the situation? Give me a break. She has to work at it too, or he will eventually take her at her word and find a replacement. 

If my wife gave me this talk I would not take it well and would most likely exit the marriage. The idea that the guy could find another partner but stay emotionally uninvolved is naive and short sighted. The idea that she thinks he won't take her up on this offer solidifies her as a selfish, manipulative, ****ty wife.


----------



## EllisRedding

jld said:


> My approach does not rely on her. It empowers him. It makes him independent of her reactions.
> 
> Holding your wife accountable could go very wrong. I think inspiring her and building a foundation of trust may lead to a relationship where she asks you to hold her accountable, though. That feels very different to me than what you are suggesting.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Holding anyone accountable could go very wrong or very right, it in part depends on their maturity level and their commitment to the relationship. Why so afraid to hold someone (i.e. an adult) accountable for their actions? Going into it with the approach that holding her accountable may go wrong, imo, that empowers her and not him, she gets a free pass (different then offering a free pass lol). They should be able to inspire each other, implying that he should be solely the one to inspire leads to a one sided relationship imo, and makes it seem like she NEEDS his direction (once again, employer/employee relationship).


----------



## jld

rich84 said:


> You act like this guy can just up his game and seduce away her flat libido, children induced exhaustion, and selfishness. Maybe, for a period of time. Is that sustainable? Can he constantly give max effort while she gives nothing in return to help the situation? Give me a break. She has to work at it too, or he will eventually take her at her word and find a replacement.
> 
> If my wife gave me this talk I would not take it well and would most likely exit the marriage. The idea that the guy could find another partner but stay emotionally uninvolved is naive and short sighted. The idea that she thinks he won't take her up on this offer solidifies her as a selfish, manipulative, ****ty wife.


Ignore the pass. She did not mean it. Read my other posts. He needs to reestablish a connection with her.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

EllisRedding said:


> Holding anyone accountable could go very wrong or very right, it in part depends on their maturity level and their commitment to the relationship. Why so afraid to hold someone (i.e. an adult) accountable for their actions? Going into it with the approach that holding her accountable may go wrong, imo, that empowers her and not him, she gets a free pass (different then offering a free pass lol). They should be able to inspire each other, implying that he should be solely the one to inspire leads to a one sided relationship imo, and makes it seem like she NEEDS his direction (once again, employer/employee relationship).


If a woman is scared to lose the marriage, she may accept all kinds of things that are not healthy. I do not want to promote that.

I want to promote his working on himself and then inspiring her with his fine example.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Buddy400

Lila said:


> He realized something was 'off' when I began treating it like my 10 minute metcon workout. He could tell immediately that the passion was missing. This is what prompted him to start practicing patience. He didn't like that I wasn't interested in sex but was doing it for his benefit.


I'd understand and be willing to wait two years; if I knew it would be two years.

What if it turns out to be 5, 10 or it never comes back? Somewhere along the line I'd have to pull the plug.

I think part of the problem is men and women that feel that all sex has to be enthusiastic all the time.

I'd be willing to give or receive sex that didn't result in wild orgasmic pleasure for the giver if it was given in a spirit of love and caring. I guess if one isn't willing to receive or give in that circumstance, that's going to make the problem harder to solve.

I've read of plenty of women that are happy to have sex when they aren't feeling up to an orgasm because they enjoy making their husbands happy and enjoy the intimate connection. Is this "faking"?

It would seem that treating it as 10 minute metcon workout or treating it as something that you were happy to do for your husband because you love him and care about his happiness would simply have been a matter of how you approached it mentally. I think it might have made a world of difference to how your husband received it while requiring the same amount of effort from you. If he wasn't willing to have sex that way, then it was his choice to wait until things changed.

If two people only do things when they are both really in the mood, it seems like it would be the rare couple that ever does anything together.


----------



## ocotillo

EllisRedding said:


> It doesn't have to be an even 50/50. It is all about responsibility and accountability, which I honestly don't see from your approach since you tend to shift everything on the guy to correct.


I'm going to have to agree with jld on this one, but not for the exact same reasons.

There are two basic approaches to fairness in human interactions. One is based on rules; the other is based on outcome. Both approaches have their good points and bad points. Which one is best is a philosophical debate as old as the human race itself because both have caused serious miscarriages of justice. (I can give examples)

Sex in marriage is one area where the two approaches often seem to be at loggerheads. I don't think think this is _automatically_ a gender issue, but it does seem to me that men (As a group) tend to lean towards rules based approaches while women (Again as a group) tend to be outcome based in their outlook.

Do we have an obligation towards our spouse? Absolutely we do. In good faith, our spouse has placed an important human need in our hands and to turn our backs on them after that fact would be an extraordinary demonstration of bad faith.

But that's not the whole story though. Rigid adherence to principle can easily make one person happy at the expense of the other. If you carefully read through female responses on TAM, that concern comes through loud and clear. Rules based concepts like, reciprocity, equitability, obligation, etc. are either characterized as repugnant, distasteful, unromantic in the extreme or they're spun into personality flaws like selfishness and entitlement. 

For a striking example of this, read through Methuselah's  So....did you get your blow-job on Father's Day?  thread.

Is there anything wrong with doing something nice for our spouse on Mother's Day, Father's Day, their birthday, etc.? *Of course not. * However, making that "Nice Thing" sexual in nature creates a mechanical element of obligation which is objectionable.

So when jld says that a man needs to lead and inspire, I agree with her in the sense that he must set the tone. 

This is crass, but in many ways it strikes me as the difference between dogs and cats. Dogs take to the barter system like a fish to water. Cats not so much. If you want a cat to do something, you have to create an environment where it's what the cat would want to do anyway. Otherwise you'll just get scratched....


----------



## EllisRedding

jld said:


> Ignore the pass. She did not mean it. Read my other posts. He needs to reestablish a connection with her.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


How do you know she did not mean it??? You want to believe she didn't mean it so you can give her a "free pass" and throw it back at him. Heck, she clearly emphasized the whole "free pass" thing in her article. Either she meant it, which means she thinks $hit of her marriage, or she didn't mean it and it was used as a means to manipulate her H. It should definitely be taken into account when dealing with her



jld said:


> If a woman is scared to lose the marriage, she may accept all kinds of things that are not healthy. I do not want to promote that.
> 
> I want to promote his working on himself and then inspiring her with his fine example.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


And conversely, fear of losing a marriage may be enough to shake things up. You see that recommended here frequently. 

I still don't see how holding one accountable now equates to fear ...

I want to promote them on working together to fix their marriage. Your assumption is that he is broken and needs to be fixed first.


----------



## EllisRedding

@Oct.

Thanks for your response and insight.

I did participate in that BJ thread, was rather amusing lol.

I still believe by saying a man needs to lead and inspire, it puts down females as being unable to do this themselves. If true then are they really equals, or as I put it, I see more of an employer/employee relationship. I am not saying there is anything wrong if that is naturally where the relationship heads. However, it shouldn't be forced, the assumption shouldn't be made that it is always his responsibility (which comes along with the idea that if things are broken it is because he is not meeting her needs). There still needs to be accountability within a relationship, a willingness by both people to make the marriage work. If the marriage requires one person to fight for it b/c the other person makes absurd gestures, well, I don't see much of a marriage there.

Good conversation :grin2:


----------



## jld

EllisRedding said:


> How do you know she did not mean it??? You want to believe she didn't mean it so you can give her a "free pass" and throw it back at him. Heck, she clearly emphasized the whole "free pass" thing in her article. Either she meant it, which means she thinks $hit of her marriage, or she didn't mean it and it was used as a means to manipulate her H. It should definitely be taken into account when dealing with her
> 
> And conversely, fear of losing a marriage may be enough to shake things up. You see that recommended here frequently.
> 
> I still don't see how holding one accountable now equates to fear ...
> 
> I want to promote them on working together to fix their marriage. Your assumption is that he is broken and needs to be fixed first.


Ellis, can you see past the rule idea that ocotillo used? This is not about right and wrong. It is about getting them back on track by persuading her to have sex again, mainly by hearing her concerns and rebuilding the emotional connection.

That hall pass idea is her way of saying, Leave me alone already! That is it. It is like telling him to jump in the lake. She does not mean it literally, so he can put away the swimsuit.

Threatening her with divorce, really threats at all, are weak. I would advise any woman threatened that way to leave, if at all financially possible. Working out problems by listening and seeking to understand, perhaps one-sided at first, is the healthy path.


----------



## EllisRedding

jld said:


> Ellis, can you see past the rule idea that ocotillo used? This is not about right and wrong. It is about getting them back on track by persuading her to have sex again,* mainly by hearing her concerns and rebuilding the emotional connection.*
> 
> That hall pass idea is her way of saying, Leave me alone already! That is it. It is like telling him to jump in the lake. She does not mean it literally, so he can put away the swimsuit.
> 
> Threatening her with divorce, really threats at all, are weak. I would advise any woman threatened that way to leave, if at all financially possible. Working out problems by listening and seeking to understand, perhaps one-sided at first, is the healthy path.


The bolded is what I have said, except I still believe she is as much responsible in rebuilding the connection where you place it on his shoulders. Some of the concerns could very well be stuff that she needs to work on, not him. For example, her body image issues are hers to come to terms with and own, unless he is acting in a way that is making her feel more insecure about her body. She even says her body will never come back, says who??? Keep in mind I am not dismissing her body image issues, but pointing out there are things she needs to work on herself that has nothing to do with him (assuming what I mentioned before).

And following up with Buddy400, she is under the assumption that sex has to be in the manner of a freaky prostitute, given up every night, etc... Maybe that is what her husband wants, or maybe she is assuming that to make herself feel better about pushing back, when instead maybe she should be talking to him to better understand his needs.

See, it goes both ways, and I have no issues stating that she needs to play a role in fixing her marriage as well if she wants him by her side for the next 15+ years


----------



## Marduk

All this back and forth would be great if the problem was her libido.

It isn't.

The problem is her laziness, sense of entitlement, and self-centered eloquence.

Sex is only the symptom. Her being willing to outsource his need is a signpost guiding the way.

See the way she thinks about marriage or kids in general. Everything exists to serve her weak will, including her celebrating it.


----------



## jld

EllisRedding said:


> The bolded is what I have said, except I still believe she is as much responsible in rebuilding the connection where you place it on his shoulders. Some of the concerns could very well be stuff that she needs to work on, not him. For example, her body image issues are hers to come to terms with and own, unless he is acting in a way that is making her feel more insecure about her body. She even says her body will never come back, says who??? Keep in mind I am not dismissing her body image issues, but pointing out there are things she needs to work on herself that has nothing to do with him (assuming what I mentioned before).
> 
> And following up with Buddy400, she is under the assumption that sex has to be in the manner of a freaky prostitute, given up every night, etc... Maybe that is what her husband wants, or maybe she is assuming that to make herself feel better about pushing back, when instead maybe she should be talking to him to better understand his needs.
> 
> See, it goes both ways, and I have no issues stating that she needs to play a role in fixing her marriage as well if she wants him by her side for the next 15+ years


Maybe she does not care about what happens in 15 years. Maybe she is trying to get through today without him on her back.

For body issues, just listen and be supportive. Tell her to you she is always beautiful. Leave it at that.

Yeah, this idea that a wife always has to be enthusiastic for sex sounds very needy on the part of a man, imo. He needs access; he will have to inspire enthusiasm.

He can certainly divorce if he wants. Just won't see his kids every day. Taking the lead in seeking to understand sounds like a much lower risk.


----------



## EllisRedding

jld said:


> Yeah, this idea that a wife always has to be enthusiastic for sex sounds very needy on the part of a man, imo.


You lost me here, are you implying she feels that way because he is pushing it on her as part of his needs?


----------



## farsidejunky

What happens when taking the lead through understanding falls short, say after 6 months or a year?

And as for enthusiastic sex being called needy, it sounds like a mischaracterization to me. It is a measure of desire for her partner. If that desire is absent, I have very little interest. If it is not enthusiastic, I don't really want it.

Coining someone's wants and needs from a relationship as needy is a bit disrespectful IMO.


----------



## jld

EllisRedding said:


> You lost me here, are you implying she feels that way because he is pushing it on her as part of his needs?


I would guess. If he wants enthusiasm, he needs to inspire it.


----------



## jld

farsidejunky said:


> What happens when taking the lead through understanding falls short, say after 6 months or a year?
> 
> And as for enthusiastic sex being called needy, it sounds like a mischaracterization to me. It is a measure of desire for her partner. If that desire is absent, I have very little interest. If it is not enthusiastic, I don't really want it.
> 
> Coining someone's wants and needs from a relationship as needy is a bit disrespectful IMO.


I do not think it will take that long, especially when you are using excellent materials like that Reconciling with a Hardened Wife link.

Inspire enthusiasm in your wives, gentlemen. Start with meeting her emotional needs.

If you are truly not compatible, then it would be a kindness to both of you to part ways.


----------



## EllisRedding

jld said:


> I would guess. If he wants enthusiasm, he needs to inspire it.


Why would you assume that??? Nowhere in her post does she indicate that is what he wanted. She kept bringing it up to the point where is seems more like she is telling herself that is what he must want, and since she can't give it to him it is ok to turn away completely. Somehow you took this as being a "man" issue


----------



## jld

EllisRedding said:


> Why would you assume that??? Nowhere in her post does she indicate that is what he wanted. She kept bringing it up to the point where is seems more like she is telling herself that is what he must want, and since she can't give it to him it is ok to turn away completely. Somehow you took this as being a "man" issue


Again, it's a guess.

Do you want to solve the problem, or justify him?


----------



## EllisRedding

jld said:


> Again, it's a guess.
> 
> Do you want to solve the problem, or justify him?


You really have this all pinned down on him ... just another "man" thing expecting sexcapdes and mind blowing sex every day ...

I have offered my opinion on how to solve the problem, are you saying I haven't because they don't line up with your ideas 

Do you want to solve the problem or continue to make excuses for her about why he is in the wrong?


----------



## jld

EllisRedding said:


> You really have this all pinned down on him ... just another "man" thing expecting sexcapdes and mind blowing sex every day ...
> 
> I have offered my opinion on how to solve the problem, are you saying I haven't because they don't line up with your ideas
> 
> Do you want to solve the problem or continue to make excuses for her about why he is in the wrong?


Beyond Right and Wrong, Ellis.

He wants sex. I am showing him how he can likely get it from her without coercion.


----------



## ocotillo

jld said:


> It is about getting them back on track by persuading her to have sex again, mainly by hearing her concerns and rebuilding the emotional connection.



I think what might be upsetting is the assumption that it lies within this man's power to fix things. The corollary to that thought is that he, (And by extension, other men in the same situation) have failed in some way. 

Leading a horse to water doesn't automatically make it thirsty and no amount of squeezing is going to get blood out of a stone.


----------



## EllisRedding

jld said:


> Beyond Right and Wrong, Ellis.
> 
> He wants sex. I am showing him how he can likely get it from her without coercion.


No, you are ignoring any of my suggestions because you believe you are right and your way is the only way (which you are wrong if you believe this). None of my suggestions were meant as a way for coercion, but that is your spin on it ...


----------



## jld

ocotillo said:


> I think what might be upsetting is the assumption that it lies within this man's power to fix things. The corollary to that thought is that he, (And by extension, other men in the same situation) have failed in some way.
> 
> Leading a horse to water doesn't automatically make it thirsty and no amount of squeezing is going to get blood out of a stone.


There may be a biological component to this that is unfixable. But before we conclude that, we must try to repair any emotional disconnect between the couple.

It takes maturity to acknowledge failure. We have all failed at things. We can learn and not repeat our mistakes by studying why we made them to begin with. Justifying and defending ourselves will only keep us stuck and vulnerable to repeating our mistakes.


----------



## Marduk

Occam's razor, jld. 

We can twist ourselves up in knots about why or why not it is or isn't her fault, but what is evident, simple, and consistent is that this is based on an unwillingness on her part to exert effort. 

Now, I know what you're going to say: that he needs to inspire her to make an effort. And in this I agree. 

Where we will part company again is how he can do that. I think he does that by stopping white knighting her (this is how she gets away with it) and forcing her to put her feet on solid ground. 

if she were happy with a lack of accountability, she wouldn't have written this post seeking support in her justification of her own behaviour. The sheer fact that she is celebrating it and encouraging others to follow suit betrays that she isn't secure in her decision.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

EllisRedding said:


> No, you are ignoring any of my suggestions because you believe you are right and your way is the only way (which you are wrong if you believe this). None of my suggestions were meant as a way for coercion, but that is your spin on it ...


His going to her and telling her she has 50% responsibility for fixing a problem that she may not consider a problem may not go over well. Listening to her and meeting her needs will likely pave the path towards a mutually agreeable solution and avoid any desire to threaten her in any way, which is a form of coercion.

It may not have been you suggesting threatening divorce, Ellis, but I believe someone in this discussion brought it up. That is why I mentioned it.


----------



## jld

marduk said:


> Occam's razor, jld.
> 
> We can twist ourselves up in knots about why or why not it is or isn't her fault, but what is evident, simple, and consistent is that this is based on an unwillingness on her part to exert effort.
> 
> Now, I know what you're going to say: that he needs to inspire her to make an effort. And in this I agree.
> 
> Where we will part company again is how he can do that. I think he does that by stopping white knighting her (this is how she gets away with it) and forcing her to put her feet on solid ground.
> 
> if she were happy with a lack of accountability, she wouldn't have written this post seeking support in her justification of her own behaviour. The sheer fact that she is celebrating it and encouraging others to follow suit betrays that she isn't secure in her decision.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I do not think she is looking for accountability. I think she is looking for understanding.


----------



## jld

I can't believe anyone would put accountability in the same thought as sex. It is like forcing someone to eat birthday cake. Makes no sense.


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> I do not think she is looking for accountability. I think she is looking for understanding.


I think she has understanding in abundance. 

Look at his response. More understanding. 

Perhaps she has too much understanding. And too few consequences for her own behaviour.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## EllisRedding

jld said:


> His going to her and telling her she has 50% responsibility for fixing a problem that she may not consider a problem may not go over well. Listening to her and meeting her needs will likely pave the path towards a mutually agreeable solution and avoid any desire to threaten her in any way, which is a form of coercion.
> 
> It may not have been you suggesting threatening divorce, Ellis, but I believe someone in this discussion brought it up. That is why I mentioned it.


Never said 50%. All I said was to sit down, discuss each others needs, figure out what needs are not being met, and then work from there to fix. Some of those needs may be ones that he needs to work on, some may be hers, IDK. It is not his responsibility to fix every single need that she has b/c I believe some of those she needs to fix herself. Likewise, she simply cannot just ignore his needs until hers are met. This is where accountability comes in to play.


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> I can't believe anyone would put accountability in the same thought as sex. It is like forcing someone to eat birthday cake. Makes no sense.


Lol. 

Monogamy means that you take accountability for each other's sexual satisfaction. 

Having children means you take accountability for parenting. 

She's demonstrating neither. 

A woman who'd rather sit on the couch in her sweatpants and eat Haagen daas while blogging about how smart and courageous she is than feed her children or **** her husband or stay in shape...

Actions have consequences.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## ocotillo

jld said:


> There may be a biological component to this that is unfixable.


Yes. Lila has said as much on this thread. It took two full years for her to feel normal again.





jld said:


> It takes maturity to acknowledge failure. We have all failed at things. We can learn and not repeat our mistakes by studying why we made them to begin with. Justifying and defending ourselves will only keep us stuck and vulnerable to repeating our mistakes.


Agreed, but I would say that we're walking a knife edge here with a yawning chasm on _both sides._ 

On one hand, yes we should acknowledge our failures and learn from them, but on the other hand, beating yourself up for things that were truly out of your control is a form of mental illness.


----------



## T&T

jld said:


> She may not be, *but he will not see his children every day if he divorces.*


jld, 

That's assuming she's not an unfit parent...Many men put up with sh!tty marriages and wives just because of this. 

It's also stopping a LOT of men from committing...


----------



## jld

T&T said:


> jld,
> 
> That's assuming she's not an unfit parent...Many men put up with sh!tty marriages and wives just because of this.
> 
> It's also stopping a LOT of men from committing...


I have not heard anything indicating she is anything close to an unfit parent.


----------



## T&T

jld said:


> I have not heard anything indicating she is anything close to an unfit parent.


Nor did I, but we can't _assume_ she'll get custody.


----------



## jld

EllisRedding said:


> Never said 50%. All I said was to sit down, discuss each others needs, figure out what needs are not being met, and then work from there to fix. Some of those needs may be ones that he needs to work on, some may be hers, IDK. It is not his responsibility to fix every single need that she has b/c I believe some of those she needs to fix herself. Likewise, she simply cannot just ignore his needs until hers are met. This is where accountability comes in to play.


Accountability for sex would never go over with me. My husband wisely uses other methods.


----------



## jld

marduk said:


> Lol.
> 
> Monogamy means that you take accountability for each other's sexual satisfaction.
> 
> Having children means you take accountability for parenting.
> 
> She's demonstrating neither.
> 
> A woman who'd rather sit on the couch in her sweatpants and eat Haagen daas while blogging about how smart and courageous she is than feed her children or **** her husband or stay in shape...
> 
> Actions have consequences.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


He can certainly divorce if he wants. I suggest trying to connect emotionally before he takes that step.


----------



## EllisRedding

jld said:


> Accountability for sex would never go over with me. My husband wisely uses other methods.


The marriage is broken, we are talking about accountability by both parties for fixing it if that is what they truly want.


----------



## jld

ocotillo said:


> On one hand, yes we should acknowledge our failures and learn from them, but on the other hand, beating yourself up for things that were truly out of your control is a form of mental illness.


We can all look back and see where we should have made different choices. I think we should be humble and admit our mistakes, at least to ourselves.

Ocotillo, we all have our regrets. Being honest with ourselves about them can be part of healing from them. Nobody is perfect, after all.


----------



## jld

EllisRedding said:


> The marriage is broken, we are talking about accountability by both parties for fixing it if that is what they truly want.


You are talking 50/50. I am talking husband taking responsible for the marriage, and certainly for getting more sex than he currently is.


----------



## jld

T&T said:


> Nor did I, but we can't _assume_ she'll get custody.


Even if they share it, he is unlikely to get more than 50%.

My gosh, I cannot believe we are talking divorce when emotional outreach has not even been tried.


----------



## jld

Bugged said:


> IMO you *can't fix a dead libido*...not by 'talking', not by accountability...there's no medication for that...it's a very ****ty situation.
> Some are lucky..some others just do what you have to do, which is basically divorce/breakup


Do you have children? I think libido may be suppressed during the childbearing/raising years, but it does not go away entirely. It can be revived.


----------



## EllisRedding

jld said:


> You are talking 50/50. I am talking husband taking responsible for the marriage, and certainly for getting more sex than he currently is.


So Happy Wife Happy Life, huh?

If you consider asking both sides to be responsible for a marriage 50/50, well, I thought that is what marriage was about


----------



## EllisRedding

jld said:


> E
> My gosh, I cannot believe we are talking divorce when emotional outreach has not even been tried.


Once again, we don't know what has and hasn't been tried, all we have to go by is this post which is only from her POV ...


----------



## Marduk

Maybe we define "fit" in different terms jld.

And I quote:

"The constant contact with my kids during the sunny season, makes my soul gloomy and stormy. And we're only on week two of summer vacation."

translation: _parenting is hard, feel sorry for me!_










translation: _if you're lazy enough, the kids will fend for themselves! Yay!_

I'm sure you'd just feel sorry for her, tell her kids to empathaze with mommy on her couch congratulating herself on her wit, and her husband should come home and "inspire" her to be a better wife and mommy.

I just think that inspiration should come in the form of divorce papers and a "congratulations, you got what you want! Go be fat and lazy, I'm going to find a hot wife who's willing to actually put effort in on life. I'll take the kids 100% because you never liked them anyway."


----------



## jld

marduk said:


> Maybe we define "fit" in different terms jld.
> 
> And I quote:
> 
> "The constant contact with my kids during the sunny season, makes my soul gloomy and stormy. And we're only on week two of summer vacation."
> 
> translation: _parenting is hard, feel sorry for me!_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> translation: _if you're lazy enough, the kids will fend for themselves! Yay!_
> 
> I'm sure you'd just feel sorry for her, tell her kids to empathaze with mommy on her couch congratulating herself on her wit, and her husband should come home and "inspire" her to be a better wife and mommy.
> 
> I just think that inspiration should come in the form of divorce papers and a "congratulations, you got what you want! Go be fat and lazy, I'm going to find a hot wife who's willing to actually put effort in on life. I'll take the kids 100% because you never liked them anyway."


He married her, Marduk. He should have considered her character before he proposed.


----------



## EllisRedding

Bugged said:


> nope I don't have children..but all the couples that I know with children are divorced. I don't know that many though so it is statistically irrelevant I guess.


Yikes, either way that is not good lol.


----------



## jld

Bugged said:


> nope I don't have children..but all the couples that I know with children are divorced. I don't know that many though so it is statistically irrelevant I guess.


We have five. First marriage for both, 21 years in.


----------



## EllisRedding

jld said:


> He married her, Marduk. He should have considered her character before he proposed.


Because her character may or may not have changed since ... never heard that one before ...


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> He married her, Marduk. He should have considered her character before he proposed.


Funny how it's all his fault that his wife revels in being a selfish, lazy, manipulative ***** and ****ty mother.


----------



## T&T

jld said:


> Even if they share it, he is unlikely to get more than 50%.


Right, so she would be losing out too. I was just making a point that we can't assume she'd get custody.



> My gosh, I cannot believe we are talking divorce when emotional outreach has not even been tried.


I wasn't. I was talking about the assumption about custody. 

BUT, if my wife ever said that to me, I'd have a very hard time not walking out the door and never coming back...


----------



## jld

EllisRedding said:


> If you consider asking both sides to be responsible for a marriage 50/50, well, I thought that is what marriage was about


I do not think that is the optimal model. If we have to use numbers, 100/100 is better.

I like the Christian model myself, with the man giving his life for his wife, and the wife giving her life to him. Traditional, yes. I am okay with that.


----------



## jld

T&T said:


> BUT, if my wife ever said that to me, I'd have a very hard time not walking out the door and never coming back...


My husband would laugh and take me in his arms. 

But he would never act like that husband, so we would not get to that point, anyway.


----------



## jld

marduk said:


> Funny how it's all his fault that his wife revels in being a selfish, lazy, manipulative ***** and ****ty mother.


He has influence that he can use. I am not letting him off the hook.


----------



## jld

EllisRedding said:


> Because her character may or may not have changed since ... never heard that one before ...


That is why you get to know the person first. 

What made you decide to propose? Did you think it through?


----------



## T&T

jld said:


> My husband would laugh and take me in his arms.
> 
> But he would never act like that husband, so we would not get to that point, anyway.


IMO, if those words ever came out of her mouth the marriage was dead to begin with. 

Laugh and take you in his arms?


----------



## jld

T&T said:


> IMO, if those words ever came out of her mouth the marriage was dead to begin with.
> 
> Laugh and take you in his arms?


He is not threatened by hyperbolic speech.

He is used to it.


----------



## Marduk

How about the post where she talks about leaving hear child in a hot car while she was chatting and going grocery shopping and she's totally not a negligent mother because it could happen to anyone?

Or about teaching your kids to quit things when they get hard?

Read her stuff. It sounds funny, but it's actually scary as hell. I can't believe some guy had 4 kids with her.

She calls her blog "Scary Mommy" for a reason. She's eloquent and witty, but scary as hell.

I see four kids paying therapists a lot of money over the coming decades.


----------



## EllisRedding

jld said:


> I do not think that is the optimal model. If we have to use numbers, 100/100 is better.
> 
> I like the Christian model myself, with the man giving his life for his wife, and the wife giving her life to him. Traditional, yes. I am okay with that.


50/50, 100/100, do the math and the result is the same  So your model seems to believe in both giving themselves to each other which is no different then what I am saying. Does your model though also state that the man must give himself to his wife first in hopes of her returning the favor?



jld said:


> That is why you get to know the person first.
> 
> What made you decide to propose? Did you think it through?


So you assume that if a person changes in a marriage it is because the other did not know the person well enough, c'mon...


----------



## T&T

jld said:


> He is not threatened by hyperbolic speech.
> 
> He is used to it.


You were joking? Or, is he just used to you being irrational?


----------



## jld

Bugged said:


> jld in my case i wasn't being hyperbolic..I meant it...sometimes when the more you try the more you fail...you end up with that kind of solution...as a last resort..before you walk


I am really sorry to hear that, bugged.  I will have to read your thread.


----------



## jld

marduk said:


> How about the post where she talks about leaving hear child in a hot car while she was chatting and going grocery shopping and she's totally not a negligent mother because it could happen to anyone?
> 
> Or about teaching your kids to quit things when they get hard?
> 
> Read her stuff. It sounds funny, but it's actually scary as hell. I can't believe some guy had 4 kids with her.
> 
> She calls her blog "Scary Mommy" for a reason. She's eloquent and witty, but scary as hell.
> 
> I see four kids paying therapists a lot of money over the coming decades.


I only read the post at the beginning of the thread.


----------



## ocotillo

jld said:


> Ocotillo, we all have our regrets. Being honest with ourselves about them can be part of healing from them. Nobody is perfect, after all.


We all have regrets of the, "If I knew then what I know now" variety, but since it's neither reasonable nor fair to expect our younger self to know what our older self does, dwelling on them is neither productive nor healthy. 

I think we're both meandering a little bit though.

I'm simply trying to point out why feathers seem to be getting ruffled. When you assume with no firsthand knowledge of the situation that Mr. Hosseini could fix this problem if he were only strong enough and principled enough to do so, I think people are jumping to the conclusion that they have also been weighed in the scales and found wanting.


----------



## jld

EllisRedding said:


> 50/50, 100/100, do the math and the result is the same  So your model seems to believe in both giving themselves to each other which is no different then what I am saying. Does your model though also state that the man must give himself to his wife first in hopes of her returning the favor?
> 
> So you assume that if a person changes in a marriage it is because the other did not know the person well enough, c'mon...


If he had not proved his character sufficiently to me, I would not have married him, no.

I understand changes can take place. But I think many aspects of character are there right from the beginning, if you are looking closely. 

I do think some objective consideration of the person is warranted, if you are aiming for lifelong marriage.


----------



## jld

T&T said:


> You were joking? Or, is he just used to you being irrational?


He is used to emotional moments from me, yes. He does not take them personally.


----------



## Wazza

jld said:


> My gosh, I cannot believe we are talking divorce when emotional outreach has not even been tried.


How do you know it had not been tried?

And, in my book at any rate, recognising the threat of divorce is not the same as wanting it,

You only have one tool on your kit, JLD. Blame the man and require him to work harder at meeting the woman's needs. And sometimes it's a good tool, but not always. Using the wrong tool can actually do damage.

There are times when charm and understanding have been the right tools in my marriage, and there have been times when standing my ground and insisting did more. It's case be case.


----------



## jld

ocotillo said:


> We all have regrets of the, "If I knew then what I know now" variety, but since it's neither reasonable nor fair to expect our younger self to know what our older self does, dwelling on them is neither productive nor healthy.
> 
> I think we're both meandering a little bit though.
> 
> I'm simply trying to point out why feathers seem to be getting ruffled. When you assume with no firsthand knowledge of the situation that Mr. Hosseini could fix this problem if he were only strong enough and principled enough to do so, I think people are jumping to the conclusion that they have also been weighed in the scales and found wanting.


I appreciate that, ocotillo. I am just trying to show men that they are not stuck, that they have potential they just have not yet tapped into.

It is similar to people thinking they are stuck with a diagnosis of heart disease, and trying to show them that with a change in diet, they can quickly cure themselves of chest pains.


----------



## jld

Wazza said:


> How do you know it had not been tried?
> 
> And, in my book at any rate, recognising the threat of divorce is not the same as wanting it,
> 
> You only have one tool on your kit, JLD. Blame the man and require him to work harder at meeting the woman's needs. And sometimes it's a good tool, but not always. Using the wrong tool can actually do damage.
> 
> There are times when charm and understanding have been the right tools in my marriage, and there have been times when standing my ground and insisting did more. It's case be case.


I do not think empathy and principles are at odds, Wazza. People can try to understand each other while sometimes ending up needing to agree to disagree.

Look, if they cannot work it out, divorce may ensue. But I think his putting sex aside for a bit and trying to see through her eyes could work wonders.


----------



## farsidejunky

jld said:


> I do not think it will take that long, especially when you are using excellent materials like that Reconciling with a Hardened Wife link.
> 
> Inspire enthusiasm in your wives, gentlemen. Start with meeting her emotional needs.
> 
> If you are truly not compatible, then it would be a kindness to both of you to part ways.


I must have asked how long it was going to take somewhere in my post bit missed it... Or maybe I didn't remember typing it... Can you point it out to me?


----------



## jld

farsidejunky said:


> I must have asked how long it was going to take somewhere in my post bit missed it... Or maybe I didn't remember typing it... Can you point it out to me?


Dr. Harley from Marriage Builders suggests taking six months to a year to win back your wife after an emotional distancing. It took Stillkeepinghopeful less than four months to get his reconciliation going strong after using that Hardened Wife link, though. I would go with the Hardened Wife advice.


----------



## farsidejunky

jld said:


> Dr. Harley from Marriage Builders suggests taking six months to a year to win back your wife after an emotional distancing. It took Stillkeepinghopeful less than four months after using that Hardened Wife link, though. I would go with the Hatdened Wife advice.


0 for 2 in answering questions I asked.

Talking past someone is a skill.


----------



## jld

farsidejunky said:


> 0 for 2 in answering questions I asked.
> 
> Talking past someone is a skill.


That looks like a disrespectful judgment, farsidejunky.

How am I talking past you?


----------



## T&T

jld said:


> He is used to emotional moments from me, yes. He does not take them personally.


Maybe, that's why we view this differently? My wife would never say that in a million years unless dead serious.

Off topic, I wrote wife instead of W because it's only an extra three letters. This place is like abbreviation hell...0


----------



## farsidejunky

If I didn't know any better I would say you are trying to use my observations against me.

JLD, you know I love ya...

A disrespectful judgement would be saying why you are talking past me.

"She is talking past me and she has a man hating agenda." (Not saying you do hate men at all, I know better, just illustrating the point)

You actually avoided my questions by answering questions that I did not ask. That is a fact.


----------



## Buddy400

Bugged said:


> Kudos to you jdl, but you're the exception, not the norm.


We've got 3 kids. Married 25 years. There was a significant dip when the kids were young. Plenty of sex these days.


----------



## jld

farsidejunky said:


> If I didn't know any better I would say you are trying to use my observations against me.
> 
> JLD, you know I love ya...
> 
> A disrespectful judgement would be saying why you are talking past me.
> 
> "She is talking past me and she has a man hating agenda." (Not saying you do hate men at all, I know better, just illustrating the point)
> 
> You actually avoided my questions by answering questions that I did not ask. That is a fact.


Please show me, because I never would have seen it that way myself. I thought I _did _answer your questions.


----------



## jld

T&T said:


> Maybe, that's why we view this differently? My wife would never say that in a million years unless dead serious.
> 
> Off topic, I wrote wife instead of W because it's only an extra three letters. This place is like abbreviation hell...0


I think that is true. I emote all the time. If you are married to a woman who is not emotional, and she offers a hall pass, you probably need to get both of you to therapy. Something is seriously wrong.


----------



## Wazza

jld said:


> I do not think empathy and principles are at odds, Wazza. People can try to understand each other while sometimes ending up needing to agree to disagree.
> 
> Look, if they cannot work it out, divorce may ensue. But I think his putting sex aside for a bit and trying to see through her eyes could work wonders.


Empathy is one tool. Compromise is another, and standing your ground is a third. I don't use standing my ground very often, but when I do, I have thought about it, I mean it, and the other party concedes or offers an acceptable compromise. I seek to be respectful but unyielding. The fact that I am still married, and have been so longer than you, and in spite of infidelity on the part of my wife, should indicate that I don't take my vows lightly, nor do I back myself into corners by standing my ground unwisely.

I find the notion that the need for empathy is all on him, not shared, dumb. You use words like powerless, victimised and threatened. i think those words are perjorative and I see no evidence that they are applicable.

A sexual dry spell and some emotional outbursts. Sure, empathy. Cuddles, chocolates, bubble baths, chick flicks, backrubs, long walks, all that stuff. Deeper issues. Try and understand them.

But I am incapable of five years of celibacy. At some point, a compromise will be found or a line drawn. Maybe I'd take the hall pass


----------



## Wazza

jld said:


> I think that is true. I emote all the time. If you are married to a woman who is not emotional, and she offers a hall pass, you probably need to get both of you to therapy. Something is seriously wrong.


The blogger is clearly emotional. That doesn't mean some sort of counselling would not help. It's a good point.


----------



## jld

Wazza said:


> Empathy is one tool. Compromise is another, and standing your ground is a third. I don't use standing my ground very often, but when I do, I have thought about it, I mean it, and the other party concedes or offers an acceptable compromise. I seek to be respectful but unyielding. The fact that I am still married, and have been so longer than you, and in spite of infidelity on the part of my wife, should indicate that I don't take my vows lightly, nor do I back myself into corners by standing my ground unwisely.
> 
> I find the notion that the need for empathy is all on him, not shared, dumb. You use words like powerless, victimised and threatened. i think those words are perjorative and I see no evidence that they are applicable.
> 
> A sexual dry spell and some emotional outbursts. Sure, empathy. Cuddles, chocolates, bubble baths, chick flicks, backrubs, long walks, all that stuff. Deeper issues. Try and understand them.
> 
> But I am incapable of five years of celibacy. At some point, a compromise will be found or a line drawn. Maybe I'd take the hall pass


It starts with him, Wazza. The idea is that he is going to lead by example. His example will, ideally, inspire her. It worked for Still.

Yes, sometimes we all have to stand our ground. If we do so wisely, with the best interests of the family in mind, our spouse will surely thank us later.

You have been married 25 years, correct?


----------



## Wazza

jld said:


> It starts with him, Wazza. The idea is that he is going to lead by example. His example will, ideally, inspire her. It worked for Still.
> 
> Yes, sometimes we all have to stand our ground. If we do so wisely, with the best interests of the family in mind, our spouse will surely thank us later.
> 
> You have been married 25 years, correct?


I hope it works for Still, but as you know, I think its too early too call that one. It might work. Might.

I have no problem with leading by example as one strategy, I just don't think its the only one, nor do I agree its always up to the guy. You and I see gender roles differently, and we've already covered that. 

I think by offering the hall pass she has taken things past the point where empathy alone is enough. 

My marriage is in its mid thirties. I take back "longer than you". I wasn't competing, we have both had long marriages. I was just making the point that my words, and my approach, are not inconsistent with a long term commitment to marriage.


----------



## ocotillo

Bugged said:


> nope I don't have children..but all the couples that I know with children are divorced. I don't know that many though so it is statistically irrelevant I guess.


42nd anniversary on the horizon. When my wife's rock-steady cycle began to falter, her libido went absolutely through the roof. 

Suddenly, she was the one having trouble concentrating at work, shamed by inappropriate thoughts about attractive workmates, plagued by an insomnia that only sex would cure and downright cranky when she couldn't get it. 

Life is full of surprises.....


----------



## EllisRedding

Wazza said:


> I find the notion that the need for empathy is all on him, not shared, dumb. You use words like powerless, victimised and threatened. i think those words are perjorative and I see no evidence that they are applicable.





Wazza said:


> I hope it works for Still, but as you know, I think its too early too call that one. It might work. Might.
> 
> I have no problem with leading by example as one strategy, I just don't think its the only one, nor do I agree its always up to the guy. You and I see gender roles differently, and we've already covered that.
> 
> I think by offering the hall pass she has taken things past the point where empathy alone is enough.


Completely agreed with Wazza. The problem is you cannot dismiss the hall pass. She knew full well that his needs revolved around sex, so by offering the free pass she went after his needs in a cold and manipulative way. This in itself speaks volumes about her. If you now go with the approach that HE needs to fix things, HE needs to lead, HE needs to reconnect, HE needs to meet her needs to hopefully get more sex, all you are doing is empowering HER. She knows she has him by the balls (I guess literally and figuratively lol), her behavior is justified because now he is bending over backwards to appease her. It would appear this is the whole "Happy Wife Happy Life" approach. I don't see that in any way empowering him, or making himself independent of her. Instead, his needs are dependent on her needs being met first.


----------



## jld

EllisRedding said:


> Completely agreed with Wazza. The problem is you cannot dismiss the hall pass. She knew full well that his needs revolved around sex, so by offering the free pass she went after his needs in a cold and manipulative way. This in itself speaks volumes about her. If you now go with the approach that HE needs to fix things, HE needs to lead, HE needs to reconnect, HE needs to meet her needs to hopefully get more sex, all you are doing is empowering HER. She knows she has him by the balls (I guess literally and figuratively lol), her behavior is justified because now he is bending over backwards to appease her. It would appear this is the whole "Happy Wife Happy Life" approach. I don't see that in any way empowering him, or making himself independent of her. Instead, *his needs are dependent on her needs being met first*.


I think the bolded is a check on his power. 

Ellis, do you not feel powerful in your marriage? 

I think this is where the disconnect is coming from. My husband feels very powerful in our marriage, so the thought of reaching out to me first, trying to understand me, does not seem threatening to him at all. It feels like a power tool, actually. 

Through active listening he gets to understand what is deep in my mind, sometimes things not even I knew were there. Because he has good motives, that info is used to make our marriage better, not to manipulate me. 

This 50/50 lens just seems so limited to me. If you like it, good enough. But that gal does not strike me as powerful and threatening at all. I think it is only through the 50/50 lens that she seems threatening. To me, and I would guess my husband, she just seems frustrated with the demands of small kids and a needy husband. Not hard to fix, at least on the husband end, if you look through a different lens.


----------



## jld

It's funny how, for some of us, that hall pass is not even registering. And for others, it is a complete road block.

To me it is like hearing a child scream, "I hate you!" As a mom I know he does not really hate me. He is just feeling frustrated. If I take the time to listen and understand the source of the frustration, we can probably work something out that makes both of us feel better. 

But if I got hung up on those angry words, and made a big deal about them, it would prevent us from focusing on and addressing the real problem: what motivated those words in the first place.


----------



## EllisRedding

jld said:


> I think the bolded is a check on his power.
> 
> Ellis, do you not feel powerful in your marriage?
> 
> I think this is where the disconnect is coming from. My husband feels very powerful in our marriage, so the thought of reaching out to me first, trying to understand me, does not seem threatening to him at all. It feels like a power tool, actually.
> 
> Through active listening he gets to understand what is deep in my mind, sometimes things not even I knew were there. Because he has good motives, that info is used to make our marriage better, not to manipulate me.
> 
> This 50/50 lens just seems so limited to me. If you like it, good enough. But that gal does not strike me as powerful and threatening at all. I think it is only through the 50/50 lens that she seems threatening. To me, and I would guess my husband, she just seems frustrated with the demands of small kids and a needy husband. Not hard to fix, at least on the husband end, if you look through a different lens.


I feel powerful in my marriage as I am sure my wife does because we look out for each other, we respect each other (she would never take a shot at me with the free pass garbage nor would I do that to her), and at the end of the day take care of each others needs. When things got off, we talked it out to determine what EACH OF US could do to make things right. Yes, I listened to her but she also listened to me, it was a joint effort to get us back on the right path. You are getting too hung up on this 50/50 concept (like I said, replace it with your 100/100 view and you get back to the same number), it is simply about both persons taking responsibility/accountability for their marriage. I am sorry but I don't see that with your approach, happy wife happy life is what I see you promoting, there is nothing empowering about that.

I will say, I respect your opinion and acknowledge we have a different viewpoint. However, you seem to think your view/approach is the only one that would work. Similar to Wazza, I believe there are several different approaches, each dependent on the people involved and the situation. If your approach works for you and your marriage, that is fine. It is no different then my approach which has worked for my marriage.


----------



## Wazza

jld said:


> I think the bolded is a check on his power.
> 
> Ellis, do you not feel powerful in your marriage?
> 
> I think this is where the disconnect is coming from. My husband feels very powerful in our marriage, so the thought of reaching out to me first, trying to understand me, does not seem threatening to him at all. It feels like a power tool, actually.
> 
> Through active listening he gets to understand what is deep in my mind, sometimes things not even I knew were there. Because he has good motives, that info is used to make our marriage better, not to manipulate me.
> 
> This 50/50 lens just seems so limited to me. If you like it, good enough. But that gal does not strike me as powerful and threatening at all. I think it is only through the 50/50 lens that she seems threatening. To me, and I would guess my husband, she just seems frustrated with the demands of small kids and a needy husband. Not hard to fix, at least on the husband end, if you look through a different lens.


You're not listening.


----------



## jld

Wazza said:


> You're not listening.


What am I not hearing, Wazza?

Or do I just not agree with you, and that feels like you are not being heard?


----------



## Wazza

jld said:


> What am I not hearing, Wazza?
> 
> Or do I just not agree with you, and that feels like you are not being heard?


You seem to assume any disagreement with you approach is a sign of a man who feels powerless, threatened or a victim. 

That's not it at all. At least for me. I just think you're wrong.


----------



## Wazza

jld said:


> It's funny how, for some of us, that hall pass is not even registering. And for others, it is a complete road block.
> 
> To me it is like hearing a child scream, "I hate you!" As a mom I know he does not really hate me. He is just feeling frustrated. If I take the time to listen and understand the source of the frustration, we can probably work something out that makes both of us feel better.
> 
> But if I got hung up on those angry words, and made a big deal about them, it would prevent us from focusing on and addressing the real problem: what motivated those words in the first place.


Here is what she wrote.



> One night, while enjoying a lovely ****tail hour with my husband, I blurted it out.
> 
> "I just wish you'd **** someone else. Have a free pass. Don't let me know – just do it. I can't **** you like you need. Just be safe, and don't fall in love."
> 
> My husband looked shocked and hurt.
> 
> "You don't love me anymore," he said, lowering his voice.
> 
> My eyes swelled up, but no tears. I looked down at the ground. Didn't he understand? I offered because I DO love him.
> 
> He looked genuinely crushed.
> 
> "Have you even considered the possible consequences of me ****ing someone else?"
> 
> I found my voice after getting choked up.
> 
> *"Yes, I've run it over and over through my mind, *I feel like it's the only option to make you – and me – happy. I just feel all of this pressure. Pressure to be a good, hot, skinny, sexy wife who knows how to bone you like a freaky prostitute, and put dinner on the table, and ask you how your day was, and be this loving mother to my kids – oh, and kick ass at my job. It's too much. I just can't take the pressure anymore."


It was not spur of the moment.


----------



## jld

Wazza said:


> You seem to assume any disagreement with you approach is a sign of a man who feels powerless, threatened or a victim.
> 
> That's not it at all. At least for me. *I just think you're wrong*.


Well, that's pretty clear.


----------



## Wazza

jld said:


> Well, that's pretty clear.


----------



## jld

Thanks for bringing up that passage, Wazza. That makes me feel, once again, sorry for her. 

Funny how we hear two different messages. To me that man is completely self-centered. She is struggling to satisfy him, in a way that she can manage. And he only looks at his own feelings.

And I am sure you see the reverse.


----------



## Wazza

jld said:


> Thanks for bringing up that passage, Wazza. That makes me feel, once again, sorry for her.
> 
> Funny how we hear two different messages. To me that man is completely self-centered. She is struggling to satisfy him, in a way that she can manage. And he only looks at his own feelings.
> 
> And I am sure you see the reverse.


No, I think she probably was seeking to satisfy him. I think it was probably a genuine offer, that cost her a lot to make. 

But I think it was unwise and in the long term damaging.


----------



## ocotillo

*Rules based / Linear / Deductive* 

"I just want to have sex with my wife. You're my wife."

"I don't make you feel pressured. I never make you feel pressured to cook or clean."

"Have you even considered the possible consequences of me ****ing someone else?"


*
Outcome based / Indirect / Inductive*

"....the sex will come. The dates will come. The courtship. The passion. And if they don't for a year … or two or five … that's OK."

"The big picture is the friendship I'll have with my partner in the long term."

"However, when that all changes, my husband will be ready when I am, with his free pass in hand – for me."


----------



## ocotillo

jld said:


> ...she just seems frustrated with the demands of small kids and a needy husband. Not hard to fix, at least on the husband end, if you look through a different lens.


I propose a simple thought experiment. 

If you were to try to describe things from her husband's perspective as accurately and eloquently as you could, how would it come out?

Surely it wouldn't be, "I'm selfish. I'm needy. I'm not getting what I want and that's all that I care about." (?)


----------



## I Don't Know

jld said:


> Hmm. Maybe I can't relate because I do not have a husband who can be crushed or driven to a divorce. He is just not that weak.
> 
> Sorry, just do not feel sorry for the man here. He has potential he could tap into.
> 
> And if he truly does not, if he is completely dependent on her for his happiness, and she cannot fulfill him, then they may be better off divorced.


I made it this far and I have to ask. Dug can't be crushed or driven to divorce, how would he handle it then? You state you've never been sexless for more than a week. How do you know what he would do if you were sexless for months or years? Oh I know, he would "inspire your passion." Please tell us EXACTLY how he would do that. Because I've seen this "inspire her passion" several times and I have no idea what you are talking about. Maybe it's something I should know or would be better off knowing, but it sounds like politician speak IMO.


----------



## morituri

jld said:


> Thanks for bringing up that passage, Wazza. That makes me feel, once again, sorry for her.
> 
> Funny how we hear two different messages. To me that man is completely self-centered. She is struggling to satisfy him, in a way that she can manage. And he only looks at his own feelings.
> 
> And I am sure you see the reverse.


If Dug told you that it was because he loved you that he was giving you a hall pass to find another man who could give you the attention and affection you wanted, but not to fall in love with the OM. Would you be the self centered one if you told Dug that you wanted him, and not another man, to give you attention and affection? After all Dug would be struggling to satisfy you in a way that he can manage. And you only look at your own feelings.


----------



## EllisRedding

Why is everyone on a first name basis with what I assume is JLDs husband lol?


----------



## ocotillo

EllisRedding said:


> Why is everyone on a first name basis with what I assume is JLDs husband lol?


He participates here now and then too.


----------



## Buddy400

Lila said:


> To us, the intimacy is in knowing that we desire each other. It has almost nothing to do with the orgasm and mostly to do with sharing intimacy.
> 
> I'm not sure H and I are the rare couple or not but we are the couple that only does things when we're really in the mood. Luckily, we share the same ideals when it comes to sex and we are very sexually compatible. Barring those times in our marriage when we were dealing with medical/psychological issues, our sex life overall has remained relatively healthy.


To my wife and I it also has almost nothing to do with the orgasm and mostly to do with sharing intimacy. We sexually desire each other but may not feel consumed with desire at the exact same time. In this case we are each more than happy (in fact we'll each insist) that we please the other partner during those times.

There is no "right way", but at least our take on things makes it less likely that there will be sexual frustration, rejection or resentment.


----------



## jld

ocotillo said:


> I propose a simple thought experiment.
> 
> If you were to try to describe things from her husband's perspective as accurately and eloquently as you could, how would it come out?
> 
> Surely it wouldn't be, "I'm selfish. I'm needy. I'm not getting what I want and that's all that I care about." (?)


I have been thinking this through, and I do not think I could express it without sounding needy and self-centered. Sorry, ocotillo.


----------



## jld

I Don't Know said:


> I made it this far and I have to ask. Dug can't be crushed or driven to divorce, how would he handle it then? You state you've never been sexless for more than a week. How do you know what he would do if you were sexless for months or years? Oh I know, he would "inspire your passion." Please tell us EXACTLY how he would do that. Because I've seen this "inspire her passion" several times and I have no idea what you are talking about. Maybe it's something I should know or would be better off knowing, but it sounds like politician speak IMO.


Our relationship is based on his emotional strength. That is why I am drawn to him. 

Okay, his intelligence draws me, too, and his solid character, but I think they are linked to that emotional strength. Altogether, they make me trust him. And for me, that trust is the basis of intimacy.

Because I trust him, I want to be close to him, both emotionally and physically. And that desire for closeness, motivated by that trust, usually spills over into the sexual.


----------



## jld

morituri said:


> If Dug told you that it was because he loved you that he was giving you a hall pass to find another man who could give you the attention and affection you wanted, but not to fall in love with the OM. Would you be the self centered one if you told Dug that you wanted him, and not another man, to give you attention and affection? After all Dug would be struggling to satisfy you in a way that he can manage. And you only look at your own feelings.


Morituri, my husband is pretty confident in his dealings with me. I do not think either of us would describe his interactions with me as a "struggle" in any way.

He inspires my respect. My respect is closely linked to my trust. If I cannot respect a man, I am sure not going to trust him. And if I do not trust him, sex would be the last thing on my mind.

Things just do not get that far in our marriage. When I am upset, it is clear. I do not hide my feelings. And my husband reaches out to understand. He sees it as his job to seek to understand me. It is the only way we will get back on track. 

He is not going to tell me to just get over it, or just do what he says. He wants me to feel good with him, and that will only come about if I feel understood. And that requires his time and effort in seeking to understand me.


----------



## Wazza

jld said:


> Our relationship is based on his emotional strength. That is why I am drawn to him.
> 
> Okay, his intelligence draws me, too, and his solid character, but I think they are linked to that emotional strength. Altogether, they make me trust him. And for me, that trust is the basis of intimacy.
> 
> Because I trust him, I want to be close to him, both emotionally and physically. And that desire for closeness, motivated by that trust, usually spills over into the sexual.


How did he figure out to be this way?


----------



## jld

Wazza said:


> How did he figure out to be this way?


Well, part of it is that he is naturally calm and even-tempered. And he has good values. 

But another big part was shedding that 50/50 thinking early on in our relationship. He saw pretty early on it was not going to work. 

Instead, he took a leadership position in the relationship. Instead of getting angry when I said something that offended his pride, he actually listened and considered how what I said might be true. He found himself learning from me. 

He started seeing the value of hearing beyond my words, and, instead, focusing on reading my heart.

You have to know the heart of your wife. You have to look inside it. That cannot happen if you are focused on your pride, your hurt feelings, your unmet demands.


----------



## Wazza

jld said:


> Well, part of it is that he is naturally calm and even-tempered. And he has good values.
> 
> But another big part was shedding that 50/50 thinking early on in our relationship. He saw pretty early on it was not going to work.
> 
> Instead, he took a leadership position in the relationship. Instead of getting angry when I said something that offended his pride, he actually listened and considered how what I said might be true. He found himself learning from me.
> 
> He started seeing the value of hearing beyond my words, and, instead, focusing on reading my heart.
> 
> You have to know the heart of your wife. You have to look inside it. That cannot happen if you are focused on your pride, your hurt feelings, your unmet demands.


What would have happened if he had listened, and had not liked what he heard?


----------



## EllisRedding

jld said:


> You have to know the heart of your wife. You have to look inside it. That cannot happen if you are focused on your pride, your hurt feelings, your unmet demands.


Although I understand this works best for your marriage, once again I see way too much of the "Happy Wife Happy Life" philosophy


----------



## jld

Wazza said:


> What would have happened if he had listened, and had not liked what he heard?


I don't think he did like it -- at first. But then he started to consider how something can be true, even when it hurts your feelings or nicks your pride. 

I think that is probably it: he started listening for truth, and not for what made him feel good.

Beware your ego, men. Do not take flattering words to heart. Even if they are true, do not let them puff you up with pride. Your pride can blind you.


----------



## jld

EllisRedding said:


> Although I understand this works best for your marriage, once again I see way too much of the "Happy Wife Happy Life" philosophy


What is wrong with HW, HL?


----------



## Wazza

jld said:


> I don't think he did like it -- at first. But then he started to consider how something can be true, even when it hurts your feelings or nicks your pride.
> 
> I think that is probably it: he started listening for truth, and not for what made him feel good.
> 
> Beware your ego, men. Do not take flattering words to heart. Even if they are true, do not let them puff you up with pride. Your pride can blind you.


I meant didn't like it as in found it unattractive. What then?


----------



## jld

Wazza said:


> I meant didn't like it as in found it unattractive. What then?


He has always found me attractive. That has never wavered.

ETA: I have a funny story to add to that. About five years into our relationship, I learned the French expression "en froid." It literally means "on cold." Figuratively it means to be mad at or on the outs with someone.

Well, I was mad at Dug one night and was not speaking for a while. I later said something to him in French about our being "en froid" with each other.

He laughed and said, "*You* were "en froid" with me, J. I am always "en chaud" (on hot) with you!"


----------



## Wazza

jld said:


> He has always found me attractive. That has never wavered.


What if it did waver?


----------



## EllisRedding

jld said:


> What is wrong with HW, HL?


It puts the emphasis on the wife and disregards the husband. If you want to be in a happy marriage make sure the wife is happy ... How about making sure husband is happy too? It is implying that the guys happiness in a marriage is solely dependent on the wife being happy, such a horrible concept. Once again, you place the success of a marriage solely on the shoulders of the guy ...


----------



## jld

Wazza said:


> What if it did waver?


You would have to ask him. It has never happened.


----------



## jld

EllisRedding said:


> It puts the emphasis on the wife and disregards the husband. If you want to be in a happy marriage make sure the wife is happy ... How about making sure husband is happy too? It is implying that the guys happiness in a marriage is solely dependent on the wife being happy, such a horrible concept. Once again, you place the success of a marriage solely on the shoulders of the guy ...


You come out of that 50/50 concept. Dug comes out of the Man as Leader concept.

A man does not have to depend on his wife for happiness. He can be independently happy and be strong for her in the face of her storms. Have you read my signature? 

Better yet, have you read the book it comes from?


----------



## Wazza

jld said:


> You would have to ask him. It has never happened.


What something happened and you found him unattractive?


----------



## jld

Tbh, I think some guys come more out of the Wife as Leader camp than even a 50/50 camp. They seem very dependent on the wife understanding them and meeting their needs in order for them to be happy.


----------



## jld

Wazza said:


> What something happened and you found him unattractive?


I tell him my feelings all the time. When he does something that shakes my respect for him, he hears about it.

My respect for him is pretty deep, though. Dug has a pretty solid character.


----------



## Wazza

jld said:


> I tell him my feelings all the time. When he does something that shakes my respect for him, he hears about it.
> 
> My respect for him is pretty deep, though. Dug has a pretty solid character.


What if you told him about something that shook your respect for him, and he said, "This is part of me, it is important, and you will have to live with it." What then?


----------



## EllisRedding

jld said:


> You come out of that 50/50 concept. Dug comes out of the Man as Leader concept.
> 
> A man does not have to depend on his wife for happiness. He can be independently happy and be strong for her in the face of her storms. Have you read my signature?
> 
> Better yet, have you read the book it comes from?


You are obsessed with the 50/50 concept  As I mentioned, it doesn't have to be clear cut 50/50 (just a figure of speech), it is about BOTH people taking responsibility in making a marriage work and making EACH OTHER happy. You want the man to take responsibility and the woman to go along for the ride.

You say a man doesn't have to depend on his wife for happiness, but you then push Happy Wife Happy Life. Sorry, but that is a contradiction. I don't have an issue if that is your belief on what it takes to make a happy marriage, I just disagree.


----------



## jld

Wazza said:


> What if you told him about something that shook your respect for him, and he said, "This is part of me, it is important, and you will have to live with it." What then?


Gosh, I don't know. We seem to be able to right things through heartfelt communication. Our core values are pretty closely aligned.

Could you give an example?


----------



## jld

EllisRedding said:


> You are obsessed with the 50/50 concept  As I mentioned, it doesn't have to be clear cut 50/50 (just a figure of speech), it is about BOTH people taking responsibility in making a marriage work and making EACH OTHER happy. You want the man to take responsibility and the woman to go along for the ride.
> 
> You say a man doesn't have to depend on his wife for happiness, but you then push Happy Wife Happy Life. Sorry, but that is a contradiction. I don't have an issue if that is your belief on what it takes to make a happy marriage, I just disagree.


Reread post 392. 

I am not just sitting around in life, or in my marriage, lol.


----------



## Wazza

jld said:


> Gosh, I don't know. We seem to be able to right things through heartfelt communication. Our core values are pretty closely aligned.
> 
> Could you give an example?


It's hard to give an example that would resonate in your relationship, because every relationship is different. 

I'm looking for a time when you guys have had a really serious problem. A problem where one of you seriously contemplated leaving the other. Has it ever happened?


----------



## EllisRedding

jld said:


> Reread post 392.
> 
> I am not just sitting around in life, or in my marriage, lol.


I did and still draw the same conclusion. Also, I am not saying that is what you are doing necessarily, but that is what Happy Wife Happy Life translates to.


----------



## badaboom

For my situation - the explanation I've heard of how women need intimacy to have sex, whereas men need sex to feel intimacy is right on. We were having a lot of communication problems, I was breastfeeding a marathon breastfeeder, working an hour away, so spending a good 60 hours away from home every week. I was exhausted. And my husband would choose the most inopportune times to ask about sex and it would peeve me off. t's not that we didn't have sex, we just didn't have it as often as he wanted it. But at the same time, I'd ask him for help in weaning the baby or figuring out how to get her to sleep without nursing to sleep, he was no help. I didn't feel supported emotionally, and I told him this. He refused to get it. 

And now, I have a 19 month old and my husband is off screwing someone else. A free pass would have gotten us to the same place, albeit perhaps faster.


----------



## EllisRedding

badaboom said:


> *For my situation - the explanation I've heard of how women need intimacy to have sex, whereas men need sex to feel intimacy is right on. *We were having a lot of communication problems, I was breastfeeding a marathon breastfeeder, working an hour away, so spending a good 60 hours away from home every week. I was exhausted. And my husband would choose the most inopportune times to ask about sex and it would peeve me off. t's not that we didn't have sex, we just didn't have it as often as he wanted it. But at the same time, I'd ask him for help in weaning the baby or figuring out how to get her to sleep without nursing to sleep, he was no help. I didn't feel supported emotionally, and I told him this. He refused to get it.
> 
> And now, I have a 19 month old and my husband is off screwing someone else. A free pass would have gotten us to the same place, albeit perhaps faster.


Completely agree with the bolded. My wife and I have discussed this as well.

Sorry about the issues with your husband. Honestly, your approach seemed correct. You guys discussed the issue, identified one of the underlying problems (marathon breastfeeder), came up with some solutions. He was just too big a d$ck to step up and help out.

Marathon breastfeeders are brutal, I think 2 out of our 3 kids my wife went through that. 

Side note, as my wife and I were hiding in the dining room trying to avoid the kids so we could eat quickly, she said "You know, I love our kids and all, but parenthood sucks". lol


----------



## jld

EllisRedding said:


> I did and still draw the same conclusion. Also, I am not saying that is what you are doing necessarily, but that is what Happy Wife Happy Life translates to.


I think we interpret it differently.


----------



## EllisRedding

jld said:


> I think we interpret it differently.


Yeah, I figured that as well :grin2:


----------



## jld

Wazza said:


> It's hard to give an example that would resonate in your relationship, because every relationship is different.
> 
> I'm looking for a time when you guys have had a really serious problem. A problem where one of you seriously contemplated leaving the other. Has it ever happened?


Yes. In 2003 Dug did not tell his parents we would not be coming to Normandy for the weekend, but visiting my sister in Paris, instead. We got a frantic call from his mother at 1 am, wondering where we were.

I could not believe he did not call them. He put it off, not wanting to upset them.

I lay awake most of the night, thinking we would have to separate, as I could not respect a man who could not say No to his parents. I thought about where I could get a job and find an apartment, and how we would manage child care.

Well, we slept late and I did not talk to him for a few hours. Finally we went for a walk and started talking. A few hours later, reconciled, we headed into Paris to meet my sister.

Two years later Dug said No to his parents about something. I remember being so surprised, but impressed. We did not see them for four years. They seem less demanding now.


----------



## jld

badaboom said:


> For my situation - the explanation I've heard of how women need intimacy to have sex, whereas men need sex to feel intimacy is right on. We were having a lot of communication problems, I was breastfeeding a marathon breastfeeder, working an hour away, so spending a good 60 hours away from home every week. I was exhausted. And my husband would choose the most inopportune times to ask about sex and it would peeve me off. t's not that we didn't have sex, we just didn't have it as often as he wanted it. But at the same time, I'd ask him for help in weaning the baby or figuring out how to get her to sleep without nursing to sleep, he was no help. I didn't feel supported emotionally, and I told him this. He refused to get it.
> 
> And now, I have a 19 month old and my husband is off screwing someone else. A free pass would have gotten us to the same place, albeit perhaps faster.


He is selfish. Long term, if he cannot change, you are better off without him.


----------



## Wazza

jld said:


> Yes. In 2003 Dug did not tell his parents we would not be coming to Normandy for the weekend, but visiting my sister in Paris, instead. We got a frantic call from his mother at 1 am, wondering where we were.
> 
> I could not believe he did not call them. He put it off, not wanting to upset them.
> 
> I lay awake most of the night, thinking we would have to separate, as I could not respect a man who could not say No to his parents. I thought about where I could get a job and find an apartment, and how we would manage child care.
> 
> Well, we slept late and I did not talk to him for a few hours. Finally we went for a walk and started talking. A few hours later, reconciled, we headed into Paris to meet my sister.
> 
> Two years later Dug said No to his parents about something. I remember being so surprised, but impressed. We did not see them for four years. They seem less demanding now.


OK, so if he had continued to give into their demands, what would have happened?


----------



## I Don't Know

JLD, 

I just think it's unfair to say what men in sexless marriages should do, based on what your H does, when your H has never been in the situation. Does that make any sense? I'm foggy this morning so my words are even less sense making than normal. <----- See? 

I just wonder how he would react if you decided you didn't want sex for 6 months or so, and nothing he tried worked to break the dry spell. My point is you don't know. He's not been in that situation. He could handle it with ease, or he could end up on a message board like this being "whiny and needy". One thing I do believe is that however much it hurt him, he would NEVER show it to you. And maybe that's what your saying? It's ok to be hurt, just never show it? Or are you saying they actually shouldn't feel hurt? 

Because, I don't really care what anyone says, IF you are going to stay married to someone they DO influence your happiness level. Not saying they directly control it or are responsible for it. But they are not completely irrelevant to it either.


----------



## jld

Wazza said:


> OK, so if he had continued to give into their demands, what would have happened?


I think I would have seen it as a choice between them and me, with his choosing them.

I would have continued withdrawing. He has always been able to reel me back in. I do not know what is over that cliff, because we have not gotten that far.


----------



## Wazza

jld said:


> I think I would have seen it as a choice between them and me, with his choosing them.
> 
> I would have continued withdrawing. He has always been able to reel me back in. I do not know what is over that cliff, because we have not gotten that far.


So you demanded he relate differently to his parents. His options were do as you say or you leave? And it worked out because he complied with your wishes?


----------



## jld

I Don't Know said:


> JLD,
> 
> I just think it's unfair to say what men in sexless marriages should do, based on what your H does, when your H has never been in the situation. Does that make any sense? I'm foggy this morning so my words are even less sense making than normal. <----- See?
> 
> I just wonder how he would react if you decided you didn't want sex for 6 months or so, and nothing he tried worked to break the dry spell. My point is you don't know. He's not been in that situation. He could handle it with ease, or he could end up on a message board like this being "whiny and needy". One thing I do believe is that however much it hurt him, he would NEVER show it to you. And maybe that's what your saying? It's ok to be hurt, just never show it? Or are you saying they actually shouldn't feel hurt?
> 
> Because, I don't really care what anyone says, IF you are going to stay married to someone they DO influence your happiness level. Not saying they directly control it or are responsible for it. But they are not completely irrelevant to it either.


I think he needs to read your post and respond. He will be home tomorrow. Maybe he will have time then.

It is fine to dismiss ideas from people who have not lived it. I can understand that. 

But it might be interesting to look at why they have not lived it, you know?


----------



## jld

Wazza said:


> So you demanded he relate differently to his parents. His options were do as you say or you leave? And it worked out because he complied with your wishes?


I don't think it was ever as direct as that, but I think on some level he finally realized he had to choose me, or maybe better said, the marriage, over his parents.

It is normal for me to be emotive. If I am screaming, things are not really that bad. When it gets to the point that I can no longer speak, that is when things are bad.


----------



## I Don't Know

jld said:


> I think he needs to read your post and respond. He will be home tomorrow. Maybe he will have time then.
> 
> It is fine to dismiss ideas from people who have not lived it. I can understand that.
> 
> But it might be interesting to look at why they have not lived it, you know?



And that's partly why I'm asking. I'm not intending to come across as dismissive. I'm truly curious.


----------



## Wazza

jld said:


> I don't think it was ever as direct as that, but I think on some level he finally realized he had to choose me, or maybe better said, the marriage, over his parents.
> 
> It is normal for me to be emotive. If I am screaming, things are not really that bad. When it gets to the point that I can no longer speak, that is when things are bad.


How often do you scream at him and how often do you go silent?


----------



## Wolf1974

jld said:


> What is wrong with HW, HL?


Because it purposely sets up an imbalance in a realtionships where the woman is put on the pedestal, can do no wrong, and the man becomes the subservient to get the wife whatever she wants. This further leads to the "nice guy" aspects coming out where you defer all wants and desires to your wife, which then , makes her loose respect for him.

A lot is wrong with the happy wife happy life philospphy It's damaging to men in relationships and women too because it makes them loose respect for men.


----------



## badaboom

jld said:


> He is selfish. Long term, if he cannot change, you are better off without him.


Yes he is, and you are right. It's tough coming to that realization, but it's true. His selfishness is astounding at times.


----------



## jld

Wazza said:


> How often do you scream at him and how often do you go silent?


I raise my voice when talking calmly has not gone anywhere. It is not premeditated, btw. It comes after a build up of frustration, like a dam breaking loose.

Silent, like that night we did not go see his parents? Much less often.


----------



## jld

badaboom said:


> Yes he is, and you are right. It's tough coming to that realization, but it's true. His selfishness is astounding at times.


I'm so sorry, badaboom, for you and your little girl.


----------



## jld

Wolf1974 said:


> Because it purposely sets up an imbalance in a realtionships where the woman is put on the pedestal, can do no wrong, and the man becomes the subservient to get the wife whatever she wants. This further leads to the "nice guy" aspects coming out where you defer all wants and desires to your wife, which then , makes her loose respect for him.
> 
> A lot is wrong with the happy wife happy life philospphy It's damaging to men in relationships and women too because it makes them loose respect for men.


Again, I think we interpret this differently. You still need principles. 

If your wife is unhappy because you will not buy her jewelry when you both agree the money needs to go to a pressing house repair, that is not a time to worry about her temporary unhappiness.


----------



## Wazza

jld said:


> I raise my voice when talking calmly has not gone anywhere. It is not premeditated, btw. It comes after a build up of frustration, like a dam breaking loose.
> 
> Silent, like that night we did not go see his parents? Much less often.


When was the last time you were annoyed enough to go silent, but he felt strongly enough to stand his ground?


----------



## jld

Wazza said:


> When was the last time you were annoyed enough to go silent, but he felt strongly enough to stand his ground?


He will have to answer. In that case, he would use active listening. If he is right, I will eventually see that and accept it. I want the best for our family, too.


----------



## Wazza

jld said:


> He will have to answer. In that case, he would use active listening. If he is right, I will eventually see that and accept it. I want the best for our family, too.


What if he is convinced he is right and you are convinced he isn't.

At the moment my impression is that you guys mostly agree, and where you don't agree, you yell and then give him the cold shoulder until he caves. I'm looking for an example that disproves that.


----------



## jld

Wazza said:


> Powhatan if he is convinced he is right and you are convinced he isn't.
> 
> At the moment my impression is that you guys mostly agree, and where you don't agree, you yell and then give him the cold shoulder until he caves. I'm looking for an example that disproves that.


You assume my actions are premeditated, that they are control techniques used to get my own way, no matter what?


----------



## Wazza

jld said:


> You assume my actions are premeditated, that they are control techniques used to get my own way, no matter what?


Not necessarily. I'm trying to understand. 

Are they premeditated? And premeditated or not, did I describe it accurately? Does the yelling and/or silent treatment continue until he caves?


----------



## ocotillo

jld said:


> I have been thinking this through, and I do not think I could express it without sounding needy and self-centered. Sorry, ocotillo.


Is this your final answer?


----------



## jld

ocotillo said:


> Is this your final answer?


I think so.


----------



## jld

Wazza said:


> Not necessarily. I'm trying to understand.
> 
> Are they premeditated? And premeditated or not, did I describe it accurately? Does the yelling and/or silent treatment continue until he caves?


About his holding his ground . . . I was thinking about that when I was driving the kids to swimming lessons just now. The times when I have been angry and he has had to hold his ground, because he was right, and he needed to do what was right for our family despite my temporary unhappiness, are times that I probably do not remember because I came to understand he was right, and so my anger vanished. With it resolved, there was not much reason to hold onto the memory.

No, my anger, and its manifestations, are not premeditated. It is organic, let me assure you. I do not try very hard, if at all, to control my emotions with my husband. We both think it is better for me to be completely myself with him. You learn a lot from raw data. 

The anger is a sign that something is wrong. Withdrawing is a sign something is very wrong.

Dug knew it was not right to choose his parents over me. But he did not want the hassle of dealing with their anger. Much easier to deal with mine.

When he reaches out to me, to communicate, I cannot resist for long. The desire to be close to him, and my trust in him, is very strong. He earned that in the beginning, and continues to do so, by the decisions he takes. 

When he is lazy and irresponsible, my respect for him suffers. If he ignores it, I will get upset. If he continues to do nothing, the anger turns to withdrawal. That is the critical moment, and thus far, nothing has gone past that point.

Does that help?


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Jld, you didn't quantify Wazza's statement, but left it veiled.

How frequently do you scream?

How frequently do you go silent?

#of times a week, month, year, etc?


----------



## jld

Blossom Leigh said:


> Jld, you didn't quantify Wazza's statement, but left it veiled.
> 
> How frequently do you scream?
> 
> How frequently do you go silent?
> 
> #of times a week, month, year, etc?


I don't know. I don't count. Might happen a few times in a month, might go years without it.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

jld said:


> I don't know. I don't count. Might happen a few times in a month, might go years without it.



Do you remember the last time it happened?


----------



## jld

Blossom Leigh said:


> Do you remember the last time it happened?


Yes, a few weeks ago. I have asked Dug many times to call me without my daughter in the room (they share an apartment), as I sometimes want to speak to him privately and do not want to make her feel excluded.

Well, he called me and asked me if I wanted to talk to her.

I was so hurt. If I want to talk to her, I will call her. I wanted to talk to him, privately. I would like to feel important as an individual to him, and not just as part of the family. Family is all important to Dug. But sometimes I want to feel important to him, apart from the kids. Does that make sense?

Anyway, I hung up. I did not respond when he called back. I went to sleep.

The next day he called and we talked. I do not remember what he said, but he reached out and said he needs to work on the issue. He said he does have a tendency to group me in with the kids instead of seeing the need to give me attention apart from them. 

For sure, I was not going to help. I am tired of explaining what I need only to have it seemingly immediately forgotten. 

I have to go back to swimming lessons now. I hope this post made sense.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

jld said:


> Yes, a few weeks ago. I have asked Dug many times to call me without my daughter in the room (they share an apartment), as I sometimes want to speak to him privately and do not want to make her feel excluded.
> 
> Well, he called me and asked me if I wanted to talk to her.
> 
> I was so hurt. If I want to talk to her, I will call her. I wanted to talk to him, privately. I would like to feel important as an individual to him, and not just as part of the family. Family is all important to Dug. But sometimes I want to feel important to him, apart from the kids. Does that make sense? *Yes, it does, you desire "us" and then family. Having a solid "us" identity I feel is important in marriage. My approach would have been different, but I understand the thoughts.*
> 
> Anyway, I hung up. I did not respond when he called back. I went to sleep.
> 
> The next day he called and we talked. I do not remember what he said, but he reached out and said he needs to work on the issue. He said he does have a tendency to group me in with the kids instead of seeing the need to give me attention apart from them.
> 
> For sure, I was not going to help. I am tired of explaining what I need only to have it seemingly immediately forgotten.
> 
> I have to go back to swimming lessons now. I hope this post made sense.


Hey and you know what is odd, jld... even though my H had an affair, he keeps a solid identity of "us" outside of our child and extended family. It was one of the things that drew me to him was this boundary he drew around me. I think it is safe to say you and I both enjoy being mate guarded.


----------



## EllisRedding

jld said:


> Yes, a few weeks ago. I have asked Dug many times to call me without my daughter in the room (they share an apartment), as I sometimes want to speak to him privately and do not want to make her feel excluded.
> 
> Well, he called me and asked me if I wanted to talk to her.
> 
> I was so hurt. If I want to talk to her, I will call her. I wanted to talk to him, privately. I would like to feel important as an individual to him, and not just as part of the family. Family is all important to Dug. But sometimes I want to feel important to him, apart from the kids. Does that make sense?
> 
> *Anyway, I hung up. I did not respond when he called back. I went to sleep.*
> 
> The next day he called and we talked. I do not remember what he said, but he reached out and said he needs to work on the issue. He said he does have a tendency to group me in with the kids instead of seeing the need to give me attention apart from them.
> 
> For sure, I was not going to help. I am tired of explaining what I need only to have it seemingly immediately forgotten.
> 
> I have to go back to swimming lessons now. I hope this post made sense.


Curious, is that your typical reaction when things don't go your way (I don't know a better way to phrase it)? In this instance, you would have just gone without talking to him until he took the initiative? What if he was just thinking about you and wanted to talk to you, sounds like either don't call or kick your daughter out?


----------



## jld

Blossom Leigh said:


> Hey and you know what is odd, jld... even though my H had an affair, he keeps a solid identity of "us" outside of our child and extended family. It was one of the things that drew me to him was this boundary he drew around me. I think it is safe to say you and I both enjoy being mate guarded.


That is interestingly BL, to think of mate guarding that way.

Because of our lifestyle (kids always around), and because of Dug's mostly being away, time and focus on the kids is certainly important. But I want his attention just on me sometimes, too. 

I don't think he really gets this, because he does not have much need for attention from me.


----------



## jld

EllisRedding said:


> Curious, is that your typical reaction when things don't go your way (I don't know a better way to phrase it)? In this instance, you would have just gone without talking to him until he took the initiative? What if he was just thinking about you and wanted to talk to you, sounds like either don't call or kick your daughter out?


After saying it nicely and calmly the first few times, and then likely yelling about it a few times after that, yep, I will hang up.

I probably would have waited until noon or so the next day before I would be breaking down and wanting to connect with him. I can't go very long without him.

No need to involve daughter if he had just gone into his bedroom to make the call to me instead of making it from the living room.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

jld said:


> That is interestingly BL, to think of mate guarding that way.
> 
> Because of our lifestyle (kids always around), and because of Dug's mostly being away, time and focus on the kids is certainly important. But I want his attention just on me sometimes, too.
> 
> I don't think he really gets this, because he does not have much need for attention from me.


I bet he has more need that either of you realize, you just reengage too fast to ever test that water. 

I want more "us" time too and we only have one child, I can't imagine 5. 

He carves space and time for us in our home, but son is somewhere close. There are times I would like to go out gallivanting alone  So, totally identify.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

As far as this girl on the blog goes... She seems to talk out of both sides of her mouth. Here is what I see....

1. She feels "pressured" yet I could see where some of her pressure was self created, not husband created, thus she needs more self awareness.

2. She "says" she gave a hall pass to her husband out of love, but I hear resentment. And it is resentment not necessarily built up from her husbands actions, but her perception of her entire life and she just throws him into the mix.

3. My heart broke for this husband when he was crushed by her words

4. I didn't believe her when she said she was crushed in return, I think she was in image control at that point.

5. Could he pay attention to her overwhelm, yes, but I would advise him to separate out what he needs to own versus what he doesn't need to own. He does not need to own her self created pressure. He can love her through it without taking possession of the blame for it. 

6. If she is that overwhelmed then they need a lifestyle change and they need to look at how she is spending her time and make adjustments.

7. With that said I do feel child bearing affects libido to a degree that education for the couple would help minimize conflict and help its navigation better. I think much of it is misunderstood, glossed over and impatience abounds.

I felt her offer was cruel, not based in love and his reaction to it was a natural one.


----------



## EllisRedding

Blossom Leigh said:


> I bet he has more need that either of you realize, you just reengage too fast to ever test that water.
> 
> *I want more "us" time too and we only have one child, I can't imagine 5.
> *
> He carves space and time for us in our home, but son is somewhere close. There are times I would like to go out gallivanting alone  So, totally identify.


I wonder how many couples actually feel they have enough us time with kids? That is by far the biggest issue my wife and I have (case in point last night, our "us" time was her coming to bed so we could go to sleep).


----------



## EllisRedding

jld said:


> After saying it nicely and calmly the first few times, and then likely yelling about it a few times after that, yep, I will hang up.
> 
> I probably would have waited until noon or so the next day before I would be breaking down and wanting to connect with him. I can't go very long without him.
> 
> No need to involve daughter if he had just gone into his bedroom to make the call to me instead of making it from the living room.


So why couldn't he just have walked to his bedroom after calling you


----------



## ocotillo

jld said:


> I think so.


Well you can take this for whatever it's worth.

If we're not capable of articulating the other person's viewpoint *in a way that they would agree with*, then we are not capable of fully understanding the conflict or avoiding partisanship when giving advice. 

The fundamental desire of HD people in stable, monogamous relationships is not about sex in and of itself. It's about connection. Sex is the tie that binds. It's the mortar holding the bricks to together. 

I'm not saying that an HD person can't do without for an extended period of time if that is in the best interests of the family, but there are going to be consequences. Step by step, inch by inch romantic love is gradually supplanted by filial love until in the end, it's simply gone and filial love has completely taken its place. 

It's not that we don't still love our spouses; it's that there is a sterility to filial love that stands outside of sex. 

If I could talk to this woman, I'd attempt to explain this. She speaks of a happy future two, three or five years from now when the passion returns. That's *not* the way it typically plays out. Flowers don't bloom after the plant it dead regardless of how much water and fertilizer you pour on them.

If I could talk to her husband, I'd say pretty much what I've already said on this thread. The problem is not going to get fixed by linear, "If A, then B" thinking. He needs to set the mood of the relationship and even if that turns out to be analogous to getting blood from a stone, it's still better to know that he tried everything he could.


----------



## jld

EllisRedding said:


> So why couldn't he just have walked to his bedroom after calling you


Because it risks her feeling excluded.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

EllisRedding said:


> I wonder how many couples actually feel they have enough us time with kids? That is by far the biggest issue my wife and I have (case in point last night, our "us" time was her coming to bed so we could go to sleep).



Correct and we are cosleepers... but you know craving is also a spice in life, just so long as it is not extremely long before it is satisfied. I tend to like "some" anticipation. Ramps up the sizzle


----------



## jld

I am not worried about avoiding partisanship, ocotillo. I am looking at the man to initiate problem solving.


----------



## EllisRedding

jld said:


> Because it risks her feeling excluded.


Who cares? Is she not old enough to understand that you and her dad are actually a couple and not just parents? Is it your concern that she be excluded or your Hs?


----------



## Blossom Leigh

jld said:


> Because it risks her feeling excluded.



That sounds codependent to me jld... She should understand that you and Dug are the primary relationship and you two making "us" time should comfort her, not make her feel "excluded." This comes across as either boundaries too open with the kids or the possibility of you projecting your own personal abandonment pains onto her. Just thoughts to ponder.

I thought it totally normal for my parents and step parents to be exclusive in a healthy way.


----------



## Wolf1974

jld said:


> Again, I think we interpret this differently. You still need principles.
> 
> If your wife is unhappy because you will not buy her jewelry when you both agree the money needs to go to a pressing house repair, that is not a time to worry about her temporary unhappiness.


Unfortunately in your scenario this doesn't work because then entitlement begins. The wife then maybe begrudgingly agrees that house repair comes first but on the other hands holds it against you that you aren't able to find a way to do both at the same time. Course no solutions will be offered just the expectation you, the husband , are to handle it all and if you don't you get chastised or looked down for the imagined slight. 

Now maybe YOU are able to be given this, you come first thing with your husband and don't abuse it or look down on him for it but then I would also say you are very very rare. So rare I would never recommend anyone actually look toward this form as a healthy relationship model in my opinion. 

Two people in the relationship, both bring different strengths and weaknesses, both have ownership and accountability to the realtionship first. Both husband and wife should put forth thier best for the marriage and should be treated accordingly. No one is more important than the other. The happy wife happy life model creates a power dynamic where one spouse has the power. I think that is an extremely unhealthy attitude to have in a marriage. Just wasn't wise enough to see it when I was in it


----------



## jld

EllisRedding said:


> Who cares? Is she not old enough to understand that you and her dad are actually a couple and not just parents? Is it your concern that she be excluded or your Hs?


My concern. 

Okay, I feel embarrassed that I have to ask my husband for attention. I have to ask for time alone with him. I have actually asked my daughter, in front of my husband, if she would mind stepping out of the room so her dad and I could talk privately. 

I was just furious with Dug that it had to come to that. Tbh, it made me not even want to talk to him at that point.


----------



## Buddy400

jld, 

You seem to be coming from a perspective that, while traditional, is not that of the mainstream (or what seems to be the mainstream based on popular culture). I don't have any problem with that. And I do believe that people are fooling themselves in believing that men and women are "exactly" the same.

However, if anybody was running for President and said something like "The Man needs to be the Leader", there'd be nothing left but the feathers. So, it's not the way people WANT to believe they think.

I prefer to believe I live in a world where both men and women are equal (though not necessarily exactly the same). Both genders are capable of rational behavior.

What bothers me is the following: if we do live in a world where men need to "stand full, present, and unreactive in the midst of his woman's emotional storms", how the heck can I ever vote for a woman as President? What are the societal ramifications of not being able to treat women as rational actors?


----------



## jld

Blossom Leigh said:


> That sounds codependent to me jld... She should understand that you and Dug are the primary relationship and you two making "us" time should comfort her, not make her feel "excluded." This comes across as either boundaries too open with the kids or the possibility of you projecting your own personal abandonment pains onto her. Just thoughts to ponder.
> 
> I thought it totally normal for my parents and step parents to be exclusive in a healthy way.


She understands and it does not bother her. It bothers me. I think he should be more sensitive about it.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

jld said:


> She understands and it does not bother her. It bothers me. I think he should be more sensitive about it.


Oh Sweetie, you've got to let all of y'all off that emotional hook. Why is that painful for you? If you feel like digging into that you can say it here or PM me. If you don't that's ok too. Worried for you... hugs!


----------



## Blossom Leigh

jld said:


> My concern.
> 
> Okay, I feel embarrassed that I have to ask my husband for attention. I have to ask for time alone with him. I have actually asked my daughter, in front of my husband, if she would mind stepping out of the room so her dad and I could talk privately.
> 
> I was just furious with Dug that it had to come to that. Tbh, it made me not even want to talk to him at that point.


I'm really hearing some pain here jld.... PM me anytime.


----------



## jld

Blossom Leigh said:


> Oh Sweetie, you've got to let all of y'all off that emotional hook. Why is that painful for you? If you feel like digging into that you can say it here or PM me. If you don't that's ok too. Worried for you... hugs!


Thanks, Blossom. I am just sensitive.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

jld said:


> Thanks, Blossom. I am just sensitive.



No, Babe... it goes a touch beyond your natural sensitivity. I understand your sensitivity. I have a precious friend here who is your same personality type. I'm hearing a trigger lying under this particular sensitivity and if you ever feel like expressing it, you have my heart and ears to hear it. I'm sorry it hurts you.


----------



## morituri

jld I mean no disrespect but this reply is no answer and it shows that you MAY be incapable of empathy for another person who is not of your gender.




jld said:


> Morituri, my husband is pretty confident in his dealings with me. I do not think either of us would describe his interactions with me as a "struggle" in any way.
> 
> He inspires my respect. My respect is closely linked to my trust. If I cannot respect a man, I am sure not going to trust him. And if I do not trust him, sex would be the last thing on my mind.
> 
> Things just do not get that far in our marriage. When I am upset, it is clear. I do not hide my feelings. And my husband reaches out to understand. He sees it as his job to seek to understand me. It is the only way we will get back on track.
> 
> He is not going to tell me to just get over it, or just do what he says. He wants me to feel good with him, and that will only come about if I feel understood. And that requires his time and effort in seeking to understand me.


----------



## jld

morituri said:


> jld I mean no disrespect but this reply is no answer and it shows that you MAY be incapable of empathy for another person who is not of your gender.


Well, I would guess my husband sees that guy the same way I do. I will ask him to read her blog post.


----------



## jld

Buddy400 said:


> jld,
> 
> You seem to be coming from a perspective that, while traditional, is not that of the mainstream (or what seems to be the mainstream based on popular culture). I don't have any problem with that. And I do believe that people are fooling themselves in believing that men and women are "exactly" the same.
> 
> However, if anybody was running for President and said something like "The Man needs to be the Leader", there'd be nothing left but the feathers. So, it's not the way people WANT to believe they think.
> 
> I prefer to believe I live in a world where both men and women are equal (though not necessarily exactly the same). Both genders are capable of rational behavior.
> 
> What bothers me is the following: if we do live in a world where men need to "stand full, present, and unreactive in the midst of his woman's emotional storms", how the heck can I ever vote for a woman as President? What are the societal ramifications of not being able to treat women as rational actors?


Very good question. Well, we have certainly lived with men's shortcomings as politicians. We can learn to live with women's, too, whatever they may be.

Also, by Man as Leader, I mean he should be the first one to say, "Help me understand," and "How can I help?" He should be willing to sacrifice first, if sacrifice is called for. Leading by example, particularly through empathy, is what I am promoting.


----------



## morituri

That is called "confirmation bias" and it MAY only end up showing that your husband is equally incapable of empathy.



jld said:


> Well, I would guess my husband sees that guy the same way I do. I will ask him to read her blog post.


----------



## EllisRedding

jld said:


> Very good question. Well, we have certainly lived with men's shortcomings as politicians. We can learn to live with women's, too, whatever they may be.
> 
> Also, by Man as Leader, I mean he should be the first one to say, "Help me understand," and "How can I help?" He should be willing to sacrifice first, if sacrifice is called for. Leading by example, particularly through empathy, is what I am promoting.


I still don't understand why HE should sacrifice first, why is sacrificing gender specific?


----------



## Wolf1974

Buddy400 said:


> jld,
> 
> You seem to be coming from a perspective that, while traditional, is not that of the mainstream (or what seems to be the mainstream based on popular culture). I don't have any problem with that. And I do believe that people are fooling themselves in believing that men and women are "exactly" the same.
> 
> However, if anybody was running for President and said something like "The Man needs to be the Leader", there'd be nothing left but the feathers. So, it's not the way people WANT to believe they think.
> 
> *I prefer to believe I live in a world where both men and women are equal (though not necessarily exactly the same). Both genders are capable of rational behavior*.
> 
> What bothers me is the following: if we do live in a world where men need to "stand full, present, and unreactive in the midst of his woman's emotional storms", how the heck can I ever vote for a woman as President? What are the societal ramifications of not being able to treat women as rational actors?


Thank you this is what I wanted to say but was lost for the wording. I want a realtionship of equals but never the same. I still want my woman to be a woman and me to be the man but equal in that we are both dedicated to the realtionship and no one person Has more power ...just equal but different power.


----------



## Cre8ify

> no one person Has more power ...just equal but different power.


I don't think that works. There needs to be a Captain on the ship.

He sacrifices because he takes it on his back and leads. Those who are unwilling to sacrifice will sit back and evaluate the risks. The leader will take whatever consequence comes.


----------



## Wazza

Jld, Dug is away a lot, and shares an apartment with your daughter. What are your living arrangements?


----------



## Wazza

Cre8ify said:


> I don't think that works. There needs to be a Captain on the ship.
> 
> He sacrifices because he takes it on his back and leads. Those who are unwilling to sacrifice will sit back and evaluate the risks. The leader will take whatever consequence comes.


I think this is one of the key points here. I am another one who is for equality. I don't see why both partners cannot be sacrificial and I don't see why both can't evaluate the risks. 

I think every couple has to find their own ground on this division of power and responsibility, according to their strengths. In a long term relationship I think the ground shifts sometimes because people grow and change, and the challenge is to do so together. That can involve sacrifice on both sides. 

Translating the scary mommy into this, she is trying to lead the change, and I think she has picked an unrealistic direction. So for me, as equals they should talk it through and come to a compromise.

For those who believe the husband is the captain of the ship, does she have some responsibility to put her feelings aside and comply with his wishes? If he has to cajole her and get her to agree with his decision, is he really in charge?

I am a boss at work. I try to be as warm and gentle as I can, and get my team to see the vision, but ultimately I have (and use) the power to insist on things being done my way, backed by the ability to take punitive action against employees who will not get with the program. It's a bad leader who goes straight to that, but sometimes it's necessary. I have the undisputed final say. I can't be leader without it.


----------



## Wolf1974

Cre8ify said:


> I don't think that works. There needs to be a Captain on the ship.
> 
> He sacrifices because he takes it on his back and leads. Those who are unwilling to sacrifice will sit back and evaluate the risks. The leader will take whatever consequence comes.


A bit simplistic. This makes it seem like one ruler over all. But you can have different strengths and weaknesses. 

So for example one spouse is good at budget so they monitor and take care of the bills. The other is great at cooking so takes care of the shopping and cooking. One is good at cleaning, one yard work and so on. Each ate the master of their domain but still equal on responsibility and commitment. That's what I meant by equal but different


Now in some circumstances, life decisions, two people in a relationship at odds over a decision and a decision has to be made. In that instance yes somone will have to make the choice and generally will be the person who wants it the most. But that's not what is talked about here. That's how are we going to determine a tie break vs who has complete control of this relationship


----------



## EllisRedding

Wazza said:


> I think this is one of the key points here. I am another one who is for equality. I don't see why both partners cannot be sacrificial and I don't see why both can't evaluate the risks.


Agreed, that is where the whole HE should make to sacrifice first seems dangerous. I mean, from a female perspective, yeah, this is great. You never have to put yourself out there or take risks. Let him do that, and if you so decide you can either accept or reject his sacrifice. This leaves you with the power and him hanging on waiting for approval (I think as mentioned here, putting her on a pedestal).


----------



## T&T

I can't count the number of times my wife has made sacrifices for me...And, I for her.

It goes both ways IMHO and making sacrifices for your partner shows love and affection.


----------



## jld

Wazza said:


> Jld, Dug is away a lot, and shares an apartment with your daughter. What are your living arrangements?


She goes to school in the same city where he works. He comes home on the weekends to the boys and me. We live in a more interesting place than he and our daughter. Plus, the housing market is still down here. We would have lost money selling.


----------



## jld

EllisRedding said:


> Agreed, that is where the whole HE should make to sacrifice first seems dangerous. I mean, from a female perspective, yeah, this is great. You never have to put yourself out there or take risks. Let him do that, and if you so decide you can either accept or reject his sacrifice. This leaves you with the power and him hanging on waiting for approval (I think as mentioned here, putting her on a pedestal).


If she has children with you, she has already made significant sacrifices.

Dug says 50/50 shortchanges women. I think he is right.


----------



## jld

morituri said:


> That is called "confirmation bias" and it MAY only end up showing that your husband is equally incapable of empathy.


Confirmation bias or not, it does not mean my approach would not benefit him.


----------



## T&T

jld said:


> He comes home on the weekends to the boys and me.



jld, that's brutal and hard on everyone involved. How long has this been going on and when will it end?


----------



## jld

T&T said:


> jld, that's brutal and hard on everyone involved. How long has this been going on and when will it end?


Three years. Not sure.


----------



## T&T

jld said:


> Three years. Not sure.


Wow, I feel for you guys!


----------



## jld

Thanks.


----------



## morituri

Of course it doesn't but you are not even close to the blogger as far as her views on what marriage is and what the caring of a husband entails, so forgive me for being skeptical.

The blogger may rue the day she said those words to her husband. As much as I hate infidelity, it is going to be very hard to have any sympathy for her if her husband decides to have an affair and her marriage breaks up because of it.



jld said:


> Confirmation bias or not, it does not mean my approach would not benefit him.


----------



## jld

morituri said:


> Of course it doesn't but you are not even close to the blogger as far as her views on what marriage is and what the caring of a husband entails, so forgive me for being skeptical.
> 
> The blogger may rue the day she said those words to her husband. As much as I hate infidelity, it is going to be very hard to have any sympathy for her if her husband decides to have an affair and her marriage breaks up because of it.


If he does not take a different approach, I would say she is at risk of infidelity, too.


----------



## EllisRedding

jld said:


> EllisRedding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed, that is where the whole HE should make to sacrifice first seems dangerous. I mean, from a female perspective, yeah, this is great. You never have to put yourself out there or take risks. Let him do that, and if you so decide you can either accept or reject his sacrifice. This leaves you with the power and him hanging on waiting for approval (I think as mentioned here, putting her on a pedestal).
> 
> 
> 
> If she has children with you, she has already made significant sacrifices.
> 
> Dug says 50/50 shortchanges women. I think he is right.
Click to expand...

Oh give me a break. First you act like women are forced to have children. Pretty sure many of them actually want children. And because they give birth this gives them free reign over their husbands ... 

You are clearly missing the point on 50/50, several others have posted about as well. Once again, it is about shared responsibility, not happy wife happy life which of course fits you well as a wife...


----------



## Wazza

jld said:


> EllisRedding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed, that is where the whole HE should make to sacrifice first seems dangerous. I mean, from a female perspective, yeah, this is great. You never have to put yourself out there or take risks. Let him do that, and if you so decide you can either accept or reject his sacrifice. This leaves you with the power and him hanging on waiting for approval (I think as mentioned here, putting her on a pedestal).
> 
> 
> 
> If she has children with you, she has already made significant sacrifices.
> 
> Dug says 50/50 shortchanges women. I think he is right.
Click to expand...

Putting on body armour....but it has to be asked... 

Does a woman sacrifice more to have children than an man does? Some of the sacrifices are different, but assuming both pull their weight, who sacrifices more?


----------



## Marduk

Wazza said:


> Putting on body armour....but it has to be asked...
> 
> Does a woman sacrifice more to have children than an man does? Some of the sacrifices are different, but assuming both pull their weight, who sacrifices more?


Immeasurable and subjective, therefore unanswerable.

The question in my mind is really, does a sense of sacrifice give a concurrent sense of selfish entitlement?


----------



## T&T

marduk said:


> The question in my mind is really, does a sense of sacrifice give a concurrent sense of selfish entitlement?


*Puts hand up* > No


----------



## EllisRedding

Wazza said:


> Putting on body armour....but it has to be asked...
> 
> Does a woman sacrifice more to have children than an man does? Some of the sacrifices are different, but assuming both pull their weight, who sacrifices more?





marduk said:


> Immeasurable and subjective, therefore unanswerable.
> 
> *The question in my mind is really, does a sense of sacrifice give a concurrent sense of selfish entitlement?*


I think marduk actually has a better question. Otherwise, are you going to have a score card rating each sacrifice to determine who has sacrificed more? It is more a question of entitlement, Also, what happens to a couple that doesn't have kids together, what metric do they use for determining who has made the most significant sacrifice???


----------



## Wazza

There's a missing piece in things, as I understand your answers JLD.

You are emotional, and express it forcefully. You yell, and then go quiet and withdraw. You stay withdrawn until Dug sells you on an approach, or does what you want. Dug is a leader, a strong man. He has firm opinions, and is not afraid to lead. He stands strong and calm through your emotional storms.

So a couple of things. First Dug is a human being with feelings. I don't think many people like being shouted at. It creates an internal dissonance that has to be released somehow. How does Dug release that?

Second, I find it impossible to believe that you would ALWAYS find agreement, because noone does. So I have to assume there is something else playing. The main example you gave is where there was an issue over Dug's loyalties to you vs his parents. You forced him to a choice, and he ultimately did what you wanted. Can you come up with a clear example where Dug made a major decision that you strongly disagreed with, and still disagree with, but went along with? If not, if you really always get your way.....how does that match with the idea of husband as leader?


----------



## morituri

That is a possibility but if we go by what she wrote in that piece, she seems to be quite content with her married life. The same can't be said for her husband. So if I was a betting man, I would put my money on the husband betraying his marital vows first.



jld said:


> If he does not take a different approach, I would say she is at risk of infidelity, too.


----------



## Wazza

marduk said:


> Immeasurable and subjective, therefore unanswerable.
> 
> The question in my mind is really, does a sense of sacrifice give a concurrent sense of selfish entitlement?


You forgot to add "rhetorical" to your description


----------



## ocotillo

jld said:


> I am not worried about avoiding partisanship, ocotillo. I am looking at the man to initiate problem solving.


We've already agreed on that last part. (In this case at least.)

Saying that the husband needs to initiate problem solving because {Insert practical / philosophical / theological reason} is not the same thing as saying that the husband is the source of the problem.

I can't for the life of me understand what purpose that serves or why it would be difficult to express his view as anything other then needy or self centered.

I'm getting the distinct impression that I'm poking an open wound with a sharp stick, so I'm going to shut up now. --That was never my intention.


----------



## morituri

Bugged said:


> I keep on reading the same things...again the question is, since apparently she tried it all and only wine works (I can confirm that being on drugs or drunk can work), what is the proposed solution here? To talk her or guilt her into _growing _a new libido?
> jld has a point..I'm not sure it would work though...


Did she try counseling? Did she have her hormone levels checked? Perhaps her desire for sex isn't general i.e. she's not sexually attracted to him.

Maybe the only honorable solution is to divorce. For starters, she would not have to deal with the dread of a man whom she can't satisfy as a lover. And he would be free to find a woman who wants not only an emotional connection but a sexual connection as well.

Staying married will only increase the risks of an affair and its devastating consequences on all parties involved. As time goes by, the marriage will be like a pressure cooker without a safety valve, eventually it will explode.


----------



## jld

EllisRedding said:


> Oh give me a break. First you act like women are forced to have children. Pretty sure many of them actually want children. And because they give birth this gives them free reign over their husbands ...
> 
> You are clearly missing the point on 50/50, several others have posted about as well. Once again, it is about shared responsibility, not happy wife happy life which of course fits you well as a wife...


Well, in my case, my husband made it clear the first week we were dating that he wanted children with me, and that he wanted them breastfed and homeschooled. I remember thinking, "I guess this means we're getting married."

He stepped up to the plate, too, getting up at night to change the baby's diaper and walk her around, if need be, after I nursed her so I could get a few hours of uninterrupted sleep. All this while he worked a full time job and I stayed home. 

It really mattered to him that the kids be breastfed, and he was willing to facilitate that any way possible.


----------



## jld

Wazza said:


> Putting on body armour....but it has to be asked...
> 
> Does a woman sacrifice more to have children than an man does? Some of the sacrifices are different, but assuming both pull their weight, who sacrifices more?


I am at risk of organ prolapse because of having children. I have damage to my abdomen and pelvic floor, as well. My staying home has made me economically vulnerable, too. My husband did not experience any of that.

Kids are worth it, but the risks are still there. Fortunately for me, my husband is trustworthy. But he could still die. There are ways of mitigating risk, but no way to eliminate it.

I suspect my husband would say he did not sacrifice anything to become a parent. I think he sees it as a complete fulfillment of one of his goals in life.


----------



## EllisRedding

jld said:


> Well, in my case, my husband made it clear the first week we were dating that he wanted children with me, and that he wanted them breastfed and homeschooled. I remember thinking, *"I guess this means we're getting married."*
> 
> He stepped up to the plate, too, getting up at night to change the baby's diaper and walk her around, if need be, after I nursed her so I could get a few hours of uninterrupted sleep. All this while he worked a full time job and I stayed home.
> 
> It really mattered to him that the kids be breastfed, and he was willing to facilitate that any way possible.


Lol at the bolded :grin2:

I completely understand the sacrifices of childbirth. We did the same thing, wife breastfed, etc... My point was simply it gets dangerous when you start listing out sacrifices as justification/entitlement.


----------



## jld

Wazza said:


> You stay withdrawn until Dug sells you on an approach, or does what you want.


I cannot stay away for long, Wazza. It feels too good to be close to him, too safe and reassuring, to stay away for long. The way he treats me makes it that way.



> So a couple of things. First Dug is a human being with feelings. I don't think many people like being shouted at. It creates an internal dissonance that has to be released somehow. How does Dug release that?


He says if I am yelling at him, it is because he did not listen before that. He says if he would listen at the beginning, I would not get to that point.

He does not take my emotions personally. He said once that he hears my words, but he knows my heart.

My daughter said last night that her dad is confident and kind. I think both of those qualities have a lot to do with why he does not take my emotions personally.



> Second, I find it impossible to believe that you would ALWAYS find agreement, because noone does. So I have to assume there is something else playing. The main example you gave is where there was an issue over Dug's loyalties to you vs his parents. You forced him to a choice, and he ultimately did what you wanted. Can you come up with a clear example where Dug made a major decision that you strongly disagreed with, and still disagree with, but went along with? If not, if you really always get your way.....how does that match with the idea of husband as leader?


He voted for our incumbent congressman once. It is the argument that has never been completely resolved in our relationship. I just could not believe my husband would sell out women and children that way. He saw it differently.

But in general, we tend to agree. My frustration tends to revolve around wanting more attention from him, and not getting it.

Man as Leader does not equal Man as Dictator, at least not to me. I would run away from a dictator. 

A leader, someone who reaches out to me with empathy, and inspires me with his own example, will earn my trust.


----------



## jld

EllisRedding said:


> Lol at the bolded :grin2:
> 
> I completely understand the sacrifices of childbirth. We did the same thing, wife breastfed, etc... My point was simply it gets dangerous when you start listing out sacrifices as justification/entitlement.


Do you completely understand? Does anyone who has not been through it?

I did not, not before I experienced it myself. And I had no clue what around the clock nursing could do to a woman's body and mind.

My husband has always and ever had respect for women. That justification/entitlement talk has no place in a marriage, I am sure he would say. And certainly not coming from the one who has personally sacrificed less.


----------



## EllisRedding

jld said:


> He says if I am yelling at him, it is because he did not listen before that. He says if he would listen at the beginning, I would not get to that point.


TBH, I don't see anything strong about this. Now maybe it is b/c my wife and I don't yell at each other, so I can't quite relate to this type of interaction, IDK. His actions seem to be enabling your behavior, justifying your yelling (i.e. just tell the wife what she wants to hear so she leaves me alone).


----------



## EllisRedding

jld said:


> Do you completely understand? Does anyone who has not been through it?
> 
> I did not, not before I experienced it myself. And I had no clue what around the clock nursing could do to a woman's body and mind.
> 
> My husband has always and ever had respect for women. *That justification/entitlement talk has no place in a marriage, I am sure he would say. And certainly not coming from the one who has personally sacrificed less.*


Obviously anyone who has not given birth will not fully understand, that is a silly question to which you know the answer to.

The bolded completely contradicts yourself. Entitlement has no place in your marriage, but then you state "Certainly not from the one who has personally sacrificed less". That is a completely entitled statement ...


----------



## jld

EllisRedding said:


> TBH, I don't see anything strong about this. Now maybe it is b/c my wife and I don't yell at each other, so I can't quite relate to this type of interaction, IDK. His actions seem to be enabling your behavior, justifying your yelling (i.e. just tell the wife what she wants to hear so she leaves me alone).


People want to be heard, Ellis. At first they will be nice about it. If you cannot hear it the nice way, you may hear it the less nice way.

I think the real problems begin when they do not try to communicate with you anymore.


----------



## jld

EllisRedding said:


> Obviously anyone who has not given birth will not fully understand, that is a silly question to which you know the answer to.
> 
> The bolded completely contradicts yourself. Entitlement has no place in your marriage, but then you state "Certainly not from the one who has personally sacrificed less". That is a completely entitled statement ...


I guess we see it differently.


----------



## jld

ocotillo said:


> We've already agreed on that last part. (In this case at least.)
> 
> Saying that the husband needs to initiate problem solving because {Insert practical / philosophical / theological reason} is not the same thing as saying that the husband is the source of the problem.
> 
> I can't for the life of me understand what purpose that serves or why it would be difficult to express his view as anything other then needy or self centered.
> 
> I'm getting the distinct impression that I'm poking an open wound with a sharp stick, so I'm going to shut up now. --That was never my intention.


The thing is, ocotillo, a lot of men do not seem to see problems in the marriage unless or until the sex dries up. They tend to be all over that when it happens, though, treating it as the problem, instead of a symptom of the problem.

If a man sees sex drying up, he needs to examine his own behavior first. It is the proactive thing to do. Seek to understand her, see where maybe you have neglected her. See how you can make repair attempts. Be that leader I am talking about.


----------



## EllisRedding

jld said:


> EllisRedding said:
> 
> 
> 
> TBH, I don't see anything strong about this. Now maybe it is b/c my wife and I don't yell at each other, so I can't quite relate to this type of interaction, IDK. His actions seem to be enabling your behavior, justifying your yelling (i.e. just tell the wife what she wants to hear so she leaves me alone).
> 
> 
> 
> People want to be heard, Ellis. At first they will be nice about it. If you cannot hear it the nice way, you may hear it the less nice way.
> 
> I think the real problems begin when they do not try to communicate with you anymore.
Click to expand...

Just sounds like enabling your behavior. If you don't get your way you just kick and scream loud enough until your husband relents. Maybe some relationships thrive off of that, who knows???


----------



## jld

EllisRedding said:


> Just sounds like enabling your behavior. If you don't get your way you just kick and scream loud enough until your husband relents. Maybe some relationships thrive off of that, who knows???


But he does not necessarily relent, and I do not scream indefinitely.

And the behavior is a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

I think my choice in that situation would be "Right now, I am not feeling heard. I dont want to continue this conversation right now. Let me know when your on listening mode and I will reengage. For now I'm going to go do xyz."

I don't like being yelled at or yelling.


----------



## EllisRedding

jld said:


> But he does not necessarily relent, and I do not scream indefinitely.
> 
> And the behavior is a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself.


I hope you don't scream indefinitely and instead take time to eat, bathroom breaks, etc... :grin2:

It just seems like something doesn't go your way, you scream, H eventually shifts the blame to himself (he wasn't listening). 



Blossom Leigh said:


> I think my choice in that situation would be "Right now, I am not feeling heard. I dont want to continue this conversation right now. Let me know when your on listening mode and I will reengage. For now I'm going to go do xyz."
> 
> I don't like being yelled at or yelling.


Agreed. My wife yelling at me would be the easiest way to shut me off and accomplish nothing. Same thing if I yelled at my wife.


----------



## morituri

Bugged said:


> I couldn't agree more...I was questioning the fact that most people here seem to think she's selfish and lazy...I'm pretty sure she's aware of the risks of making a proposal like that..unless she's completely out there..


Intellectually she knows the risk of giving him a hall pass, but I doubt that emotionally she would accepting with seeing her husband happy because another woman sexually connected with him. Her warning to him not to fall in love with the other woman is laughable because many men do fall in love with the women they have sex with. But if she's willing to live with the law of unintended consequences, then more power to her.


----------



## jld

Blossom Leigh said:


> I think my choice in that situation would be "Right now, I am not feeling heard. I dont want to continue this conversation right now. Let me know when your on listening mode and I will reengage. For now I'm going to go do xyz."
> 
> I don't like being yelled at or yelling.


If I could corral my emotions, and stop handing over so much of my power to him, this would be a good response.

I told Dug earlier what you suggested. He just smiled and said, "Yelling at me is not a problem, J. I need to listen better."

@EllisRedding: I think your characterization of things "not going my way" trivializes my feelings. And I would guess that is probably how the men here feel about my attitude towards the blogger's husband not getting as much sex as he would like.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

jld said:


> If I could corral my emotions, and stop handing over so much of my power to him, this would be a good response.
> 
> I told Dug earlier what you suggested. He just smiled and said, "Yelling at me is not a problem, J. I need to listen better."
> 
> @EllisRedding: I think your characterization of things "not going my way" trivializes my feelings. And I would guess that is probably how the men here feel about my attitude towards the blogger's husband not getting as much sex as he would like.


Lol... Dug likes the adrenaline hit

Tell him, thats ok he's not alone. 

That response helps your emotions too. I found over time, less emotionally charged and less vulnerable. Feel free to do it solely for you if you like, friend.


----------



## jld

Blossom Leigh said:


> Lol... Dug likes the adrenaline hit
> 
> Tell him, thats ok he's not alone.
> 
> That response helps your emotions too. I found over time, less emotionally charged and less vulnerable. Feel free to do it solely for you if you like, friend.


Lol. I don't think he _likes_ being yelled at. I think he just sees it as the natural consequence of not listening in the first place. 

He also sees it as being completely under his control. When he pays attention the first time, or probably even the third, I do not get to that emotional place. It all just depends on how much effort he feels like putting in at any given time.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

jld said:


> Lol. I don't think he _likes_ being yelled at. I think he just sees it as the natural consequence of not listening in the first place.
> 
> He also sees it as being completely under his control. When he pays attention the first time, or probably even the third, I do not get to that emotional place. It all just depends on how much effort he feels like putting in at any given time.


Ahhh.. maybe  lol

I just prefer responsiveness without yelling. I think it preserves the dignity of both involved.


----------



## jld

Blossom Leigh said:


> Ahhh.. maybe  lol
> 
> I just prefer responsiveness without yelling. I think it preserves the dignity of both involved.


It would certainly be less stressful.

And I have to give him some credit. He has been trying to be more attentive lately. But it seems like that does not happen without a near complete shutdown from me first.

At any rate, it does seem better. And thanks for your input, Blossom.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

He is desensitized. But, that is not a permanent state and can be affected.

I dont like having to get responsiveness from heavy handedness, and especially responsiveness ONLY from heavy handedness. So I tend to seek responsiveness from a light hand. It had to be cultivated here, but is so much less stressful for both of us.

You are welcome.


----------



## EllisRedding

jld said:


> @EllisRedding: I think your characterization of things "not going my way" trivializes my feelings. And I would guess that is probably how the men here feel about my attitude towards the blogger's husband not getting as much sex as he would like.


I wouldn't say so, I don't recall at any point ever saying your feelings didn't matter or are less important. I am only responding to what you have posted. What you see as strength and sacrifice I see as weakness and entitlement, but I think we agreed we simply view things differently.Regardless of whether or not I agree with you (which I mostly don't  ) I still respect your opinion.

Likewise, the folks (I will say folks b/c both men and women have been participating in this thread) here not agreeing with your opinions has nothing to do with trivializing you, some agree and some disagree, that is the nature of these types of threads.


----------



## I Don't Know

jld.

What does it mean for dug to listen the first time. If he says " I hear what you are saying, I just disagree and here's why." Did he still listen? Do you feel heard or do you still escalate to yelling? Or does he only "listen" when he concedes to your viewpoint?


----------



## jld

I Don't Know said:


> jld.
> 
> What does it mean for dug to listen the first time.* If he says " I hear what you are saying, I just disagree and here's why." *Did he still listen? Do you feel heard or do you still escalate to yelling? Or does he only "listen" when he concedes to your viewpoint?


Yes, the bolded would be fine. We would either discuss it until we came to a reasonable agreement, or if he had a stronger argument than mine, I would concede. Likewise for him.

Issues arise when, for example, I tell him several times that I would like to speak to him privately in the evening, and he repeatedly calls me with our daughter in the room.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Dug is not dumb.

Why is he doing that?


----------



## jld

Blossom Leigh said:


> Dug is not dumb.
> 
> Why is he doing that?


He is not sensitive. He is low emo, and his own needs are pretty basic, so it is not like he understands from personal experience. 

Last week he had his earphones in, and he told me we could chat even if our daughter were in the same room, because she could not hear what I was saying. I pointed out that even if she did not hear me, she would hear his responses. I don't know if that did not occur to him, or if he was just not concerned about her hearing whatever he would say. 

But that is the kind of cluelessness that hurts my feelings. I feel like he often does not realize I would like special consideration as his wife, and not just another member of the family.


----------



## I Don't Know

jld said:


> Yes, the bolded would be fine. We would either discuss it until we came to a reasonable agreement, or if he had a stronger argument than mine, I would concede. Likewise for him.
> 
> Issues arise when, for example, I tell him several times that I would like to speak to him privately in the evening, and he repeatedly calls me with our daughter in the room.


Well that's certainly reasonable. I think this is where it's not coming across well. When I, and I'd guess others, read your posts it sounds like Dug "listening" means doing as you want. Every time.


----------



## jld

I Don't Know said:


> Well that's certainly reasonable. I think this is where it's not coming across well. When I, and I'd guess others, read your posts it sounds like Dug "listening" means doing as you want. Every time.


I guess that is why it is good to give examples, and to keep talking. The more people talk, the better they can come to understand each other.


----------



## Wazza

jld said:


> I told Dug earlier what you suggested. He just smiled and said, "Yelling at me is not a problem, J. I need to listen better."


He knew that was the only thing he could say that wouldn't get him yelled at!! :grin2: :grin2: :grin2: :grin2: :grin2: :grin2: :grin2: :grin2: :grin2: :grin2: :grin2: :grin2:


----------



## jld

Wazza said:


> He knew that was the only thing he could say that wouldn't get him yelled at!! :grin2: :grin2: :grin2: :grin2: :grin2: :grin2: :grin2: :grin2: :grin2: :grin2: :grin2: :grin2:


Is that supposed to be funny?


----------



## Blossom Leigh

jld said:


> He is not sensitive. He is low emo, and his own needs are pretty basic, so it is not like he understands from personal experience.
> 
> Last week he had his earphones in, and he told me we could chat even if our daughter were in the same room, because she could not hear what I was saying. I pointed out that even if she did not hear me, she would hear his responses. I don't know if that did not occur to him, or if he was just not concerned about her hearing whatever he would say.
> 
> But that is the kind of cluelessness that hurts my feelings. I feel like he often does not realize I would like special consideration as his wife, and not just another member of the family.



My ex was very similar. I understand that pain.


----------



## Wazza

jld said:


> Man as Leader does not equal Man as Dictator, at least not to me. I would run away from a dictator.


Totally valid but possibly simplistic. You haven't offered an example where you have had to deal with a huge impasse.

You and Dug seem to have found a balance that works for you, and that's great. And you've been honest in talking about it and I appreciate that. 

So, being hypothetical...If I am understanding you about weakness...there are times when I as a human need to vent emotion and be upset in ways that Dug apparently doesn't, at least in front of you. It's highly likely from your comments you would see that as weakness. I don't think it is. It's part of how I process things, and I don't feel the need to change it.

On the other hand, your tendency to yell, used on me, would fail. I would ask you to stop. If you kept going I would either shout back and escalate things if you had angered me, or leave the room to avoid losing my temper if I was able to. If it occurred regularly, communication between us would break down.

If I were to say to my wife "We are having this many babies and they are being breast feed and home schooled" etc, she would see me as arrogant. Yet you accepted it from Dug and complied with it.

I don't see any of these as right or wrong.It's all about chemistry. Each couple is different.

You have (I think in this thread, but somewhere recently) talked about everything depending on choosing wisely. But a marriage is really long term, and we might commit to it when we are young and don't have much experience. And nobody knows the future. There isn't that much wisdom in the world. There has to be an element of luck.

How much of the leadership you are requiring from Dug is decision making, and how much is emotional leadership. In other words, reading your signature, is that really defining leadership? Dug's leadership is to be your emotional rock?


----------



## Wazza

jld said:


> Is that supposed to be funny?


It was an attempt to raise a serious thought in a slightly humorous way.


----------



## Wazza

jld said:


> I am at risk of organ prolapse because of having children. I have damage to my abdomen and pelvic floor, as well.


My original point was rhetorical, but now I probably have to respond.

My father, in order to provide for his family, took career and financial choices that exposed him to high levels of stress, resulting in health problems from a comparatively young age, several years as an invalid and an early death. Having a guess at your age, by the time he was your age or a little older, he was almost blind and bedridden. Based on the life spans of other members of his family, he should have lived for literally decades more than he did, with significantly better health. 

On the other hand, when he died his abdomen and pelvic floor were reasonably sound. He had totally lost control of his bladder and bowels, but there was no suggestion of it being linked to childbirth. So its not all bad. 

Now, obviously there are complexities to this. He made choices (as did you in being stay at home) and he would have had other motivations at play. But I have no doubt caring for his kids was the major factor, and while I disagree with some of his decisions, I get why he made them. 

Armed with his example, and facing similar decisions at times (because I, like he and Dug am the primary breadwinner) I try to make better choices. It's not always easy.

I'm not going to expand on the example, because I would have to add information that might be recognised by someone who knew me. You will just have to take my word for it, or not. Either you can empathise or you can't. But men pay a price too, just in a different way. 

It's just too hard to score.


----------



## jld

Wazza said:


> How much of the leadership you are requiring from Dug is decision making, and how much is emotional leadership. In other words, reading your signature, is that really defining leadership? Dug's leadership is to be your emotional rock?


Absolutely. I could not be with a man who needed to leave the room to pull himself together. I would not feel safe with him.

I simply cannot carry a man. It is completely distasteful to me. 

Other women seem fine doing it, though. Again, there is someone for everyone out there.

I do not believe stress causes illness. I read once that during WWII, rates of major illnesses were down across Europe. That was clearly a time of great stress.

I think women clearly take more risk in having children than men. I do not think the scorecards are even close.

I have to say, it is interesting to hear your perspective, Wazza. I never would have guessed people might think some of these things if you had not shared them.


----------



## Wazza

jld said:


> I do not believe stress causes illness.


Seriously?


----------



## jld

Wazza said:


> Seriously?


Seriously. If the populations of Europe saw lower rates of major disease during a time of terrible stress under the Nazis, then I think we can handle whatever is coming at us today.


----------



## Wazza

jld said:


> Seriously. If the populations of Europe saw lower rates of major disease during a time of terrible stress under the Nazis, then I think we can handle whatever is coming at us today.


You need to research more.


----------



## jld

Wazza said:


> You need to research more.


Could you tell me what disease he had?


----------



## Wazza

jld said:


> Could you tell me what disease he had?


I already said I would not post more on his specifics for the sake of anonymity. And its not relevant in establishing a linkage.

I don't particularly care what you think about the cost of parent hood for both sexes. I'm now more concerned that you need to understand this stuff to take care of yourself, and to make sure Dug does likewise. Dad disputed the linkage too, and ignored the advice of his doctors. Death is pretty final. It might be worth seeking medical advice on this.

Just to emphasise I am not making this up, google stress related illness. Let's just take one article: 



> There is a growing concern about the increasing cost and prevalence of stress-related disorders; especially in relation to work place. “Worked to death, drop death, work until you drop” are highlighted “work-related death” in the 21st century. Countries renowned for their long working hours know this well enough; Japan and China each have a word for death by overwork – karoshi and guolaosi respectively. Both Japan and Korea recognize suicide as an official and compensatable work-related condition (4). The estimated prevalence of stress and stress-related conditions in the United Kingdom rose from 829 cases per 100,000 workers in 1990 to 1,700 per 100,000 in 2001/2002. In that year, 13.4 million lost working days were attributed to stress, anxiety or depression, with an estimate 265,000 new cases of stress. The latest HSE (Health and Safety Executive) analysis of self-reported illnesses rate revealed that stress, depression or anxiety affects 1.3% of the workforce (5). It is estimated that 80% to 90% of all industrial accidents are related to personal problem and employees’ inability to handle stress (6). The European Agency for Safety and Health at work reported that about 50% of job absenteeism is caused by stress (7).


from Life Event, Stress and Illness 

I picked this one because ncbi is a credible scientific organisation, but the same information is all over the place. Stress links to things like diabetes, heart disease, stroke, cancer, and so on. There are 63 footnotes in the article, most of which are probably relevant further reading.

For completeness, and because I was curious...this article is the only one I could find quickly. It directly contradicts your assertion : The Effects of World War II on Economic and Health Outcomes across Europe - see for example table 5.


----------



## jld

Well, I guess we just have different sources: 

_"The decline in cancer incidence in Holland following World War II food shortages. Between 1942 and 1946, the incidence of cancer in Holland dropped 35 to 60 percent, depending on the region of the country. A Dutch epidemiologist, Dr. F. De Waard, has correlated this decline with the changes in diet that occurred as a result of the German occupation of the Country. During the occupation, the Germans took most of the cheese, butter, milk, eggs, and meat in the country, leaving the Dutch to live on home-grown vegetables, bread, whole grain porridge, and other basic staples. With the return to normal conditions after the war, the cancer rate jumped back to its pre-war level."_

_"For example, when the Nazis confiscated farm animals in occupied Norway during the war, Norwegians did without meat and dairy, and rates of disease (heart disease, especially) dramatically fell. After World War II, Norwegians went back to meat and dairy, and those disease rates soon rose."_

_"As an example, let's take a look at the health of people on a fat-restricted diet. During World War II, food was scarce and stress was high in occupied Western Europe. People could no longer afford to eat meat, so they turned instead to the grains and vegetables that once nourished their cows, chickens, and pigs. The result was a dramatic reduction in the intake of animal products and of total fat in the diet. Doctors observed that patients with MS had 2 to 2-1/2 times fewer hospitalizations during the war years."_


----------



## jld

I think this is becoming a thread jack, Wazza, so I will stop there.

No, I do not believe stress causes illness. I certainly do not believe stress from parenthood will kill us. 

I do not feel any need to protect my husband from my emotions, either. And he does not feel any need to be protected from them.


----------



## always_alone

jld said:


> Is that supposed to be funny?


Jlid, you know I disagree that men are always the one with the power in the relationship, but I find it quite astounding how determined so many posters here are to paint you as a spoiled tantrum-throwing princess. Why is it that wives are so frequently painted this way? I do know --have met-- women who were indeed conniving, spoiled, rather impossible. But they are by no means the norm. How is it that Dug failing to listen, as he has openly admitted to do, becomes your fault?

Ocotillo brought forth an interesting hypothesis that the disjunct in this conversation was due to a difference in approach, rule-bounded vs outcome dependent, dog vs cat, but I'm skeptical that this characterization holds. The scorecards are always out in full force when it comes to how many bjs she gives, how often she will put out and at what quality, but the minute the conversation turns to sacrifice, all of sudden those scorecards disappear. She apparently never can give enough, her entitlement knows no bounds, because her gifts, her sacrifices, do not ever count. 

How is it that bearing, raising, homeschooling, caring for your children, giving up your financial independence, throwing yourself into fulfilling his dreams and his goals means so little? It boggles the mind!

I do agree with the others that it is sometimes women who need to take the lead, who need to be the ones to first stop toxic dynamics to set the example of the relationship. Or to end it if that isn't possible. But I really cannot understand these scorecards where somehow women always end up on the deficit side because their contributions are discounted and their basic needs seen as just selfish entitlements.


----------



## Duguesclin

Always_alone, I agree with you. Many men are quick to push the buck. 

The fact that this blogger does not want to have sex is somehow seen to be her issue. After all, they say her husband is working hard and he deserves not only sex, but enthusiastic sex. 

If her husband would be too burdened by the responsibility of providing financially, it would probably be said to be her fault because she did not contribute equally financially to the marriage.

The fact is, when you try to make men accountable, they will band together and find all kinds of excuses not to take responsibility.

They can take the verbal abuse of a coach, but lose their cool when a woman raises her voice. I just do not get it.

Now, about JLD yelling. Yes it happens, but not that often. Yes I am responsible for her anger, but I do not seek it, nor do I have an adrenaline rush when it happens. It just happens, and it is not the end of the world.


----------



## morituri

Hey Dug, glad you could join the party. What's your take on some of the women who commented on her blog? You to jld, feel free to make your viewpoint on the following female posters. One small favor please, don't go off on a tangent and please comment on these posts that came from women that read her blog.



Rebecca said:


> This is great if you want to end up lonely and divorced. If you don't take care of your husband, he'll eventually stop turning to you for companionship. Sex is the connection for them (men). Sex is NOT the end all be all of a relationship, but it is an important part. Important enough that if you neglect it, it can bring down the rest of the relationship. Your priorities are all kinds of f'ed up. Also, great way to toss out the opinion of every scientist and expert in the field and label it all "psycho babble" because you don't understand what it means to be a mutually fulfilling relationship.
> 
> I would bet my life savings that, if you don't change your course NOW, you are headed to a divorce. He doesn't want "sex". If he wanted "sex" he could damn sure get "sex" whenever he felt like it. He wants you. He wants a relationship with you. He wants intimacy with YOU, despite how you've been treating him for the last 2 years.
> 
> Unsolicited advice: Count your blessings, rearrange your life, and get back in the saddle before you lose this saint of a man.


or



Susan said:


> You sound like someone who is so closed off and screwed up that you are trying any imaginable excuse to NOT have sex with your husband. I had 3 babies in 3 years, I was exhausted and worn out, but I value my husband and my marriage too much to just ruin everything by turning in to precisely the kind of woman you are. This country has become a place for women where "if mommas not happy, no one is happy" and it's common place for men to be portrayed as idiots with no feelings, when in reality the opposite is typically true. So, good job, you managed to become a mother, just like billions of other female people have! Good work! Now you want to raise the people you created and not screw them up, right? A big part of having happy, healthy kids is seeing their parents be happy together, be affectionate with each other, and no matter how you try to act like your relationship is great and sex doesnt matter, they will see the truth. Men need sex to connect, they need sex to feel loved, they DO NOT WORK LIKE WE DO, and we shouldnt expect them to. So yeah, you may not get divorced, but your actions will hurt your marriage, your husband will start to resent you and the life that he feels trapped in, and you will wish with all of your soul that you could go back in time and not be the woman you are portraying yourself as here. What woman in their right mind is so focused on every other detail of her life that she would rather her husband cheat on her than admit that something is wrong, and truthfully, you should be ashamed of yourself for writing this garbage and trying to sell it as even remotely helpful. Change your priorities, make time for your husband, if your children and your marriage are important to you AT ALL.


or



Beth said:


> Frankly, I think people think too much sometimes. I mean, really, you are not the first woman to have young children and experience all the changes and pressures that come along with that. And yes, every marriage goes through different seasons in which the romantic feelings fluctuate and sometimes don't "match". But presumably you promised to love, honor and cherish this man for as long as you both shall live (or something along those lines). And it simply isn't fair to put your husband squarely at the bottom of your priority list and then essentially give yourself a "pass" by offering him one. How crude and disrespectful, and he was absolutely right to be crushed. "Go get some elsewhere, honey," is not an expression of love, no matter what kind of spin you try to put on it. You know what love is? It's a choice, not a feeling. It's a *choice* to make the other person's needs and feelings a high priority. It's a *choice* to acknowledge and work on what's bothering *you* so that you can be a better wife to your husband - which ultimately is the very most important thing you can do for those tiny human beings on whom you have become so hyper-focused. What are you willing to give up or rearrange in your life so that you can feel more at peace for the sake of your marriage? What drives you to feel that everything else in your life must be perfect (including your groomed private parts), but it's okay to reject your husband and let your marriage flounder? You don't need marriage counseling. You need individual counseling - and perhaps a stronger spiritual foundation - so that you can order your life in a way that is more authentic and less perfectionistic. And I would also suggest embracing a more reverent attitude toward the intimacy between husband and wife, because you seem very caught up in sex as performance rather than as an act of love - which makes it easier to dismiss as unimportant to your marriage, since marriage is about love. Maybe it's that adolescent, Hollywood mindset *you* need to change in order to be more open to true intimacy with your husband. It's not a performance, and it doesn't sound like that's what your husband is necessarily looking for. But you seem very hung-up on not being able to provide that experience (perfectionism again?), and you use that as an excuse not to "give up the *****". Ick. Really? Maybe the "wild pony tricks of the past" are just that - past. At least for now. Give your husband a little credit for having matured as a man now that he is a husband and father. Did it occur to you that perhaps he sees you a little differently now that you are a wife and mother, and maybe your "porn star" act isn't quite what he's after? Open your mind to the possibility that a different type of sexual relationship - more tender, more vulnerable, more real - will satisfy him at least as much as the old "pony tricks". In any case, a complete lack of sexual intimacy surely won't, so don't count on him being there with that free pass in hand.


and



Rachel said:


> I cannot believe your husband isn't the most offended person on the planet after you writing that. You need some serious help on how you view marriage and intimacy because your viewpoint is terrible. Try reading Sheila Wray Gregoire on exactly what intimacy is supposed to be. If you cannot find the selflessness it takes to be intimate with your husband I won't be surprised if he eventually he finds a woman who is. It's not about you! Marriage is all give and no take. And sex is the deepest and most binding connection you'll ever have together. Marriages without it will fall apart. Especially if he's needing that and you refuse him. How terribly tragic for you.


----------



## T&T

jld said:


> Well, I guess we just have different sources:
> 
> _"The decline in cancer incidence in Holland following World War II food shortages. Between 1942 and 1946, the incidence of cancer in Holland dropped 35 to 60 percent, depending on the region of the country. A Dutch epidemiologist, Dr. F. De Waard, has correlated this decline with the changes in diet that occurred as a result of the German occupation of the Country. During the occupation, the Germans took most of the cheese, butter, milk, eggs, and meat in the country, leaving the Dutch to live on home-grown vegetables, bread, whole grain porridge, and other basic staples. With the return to normal conditions after the war, the cancer rate jumped back to its pre-war level."_
> 
> _"For example, when the Nazis confiscated farm animals in occupied Norway during the war, Norwegians did without meat and dairy, and rates of disease (heart disease, especially) dramatically fell. After World War II, Norwegians went back to meat and dairy, and those disease rates soon rose."_
> 
> _"As an example, let's take a look at the health of people on a fat-restricted diet. During World War II, food was scarce and stress was high in occupied Western Europe. People could no longer afford to eat meat, so they turned instead to the grains and vegetables that once nourished their cows, chickens, and pigs. The result was a dramatic reduction in the intake of animal products and of total fat in the diet. Doctors observed that patients with MS had 2 to 2-1/2 times fewer hospitalizations during the war years."_


Hi jld,

That was due to a change in diet and had nothing to do with stress levels. I could go on about occupied Europe but will refrain. 

Stress does cause illness. Just one of many if you google it.

Stress and Disease - Conditions that May Be Caused by Chronic Stress - AARP


----------



## jld

T&T said:


> Hi jld,
> 
> That was due to a change in diet and had nothing to do with stress levels. I could go on about occupied Europe but will refrain.
> 
> Stress does cause illness. Just one of many if you google it.
> 
> Stress and Disease - Conditions that May Be Caused by Chronic Stress - AARP


Feel free to start a thread. I am concerned that further discussion would be a threadjack.

I have to say, though, that it is good Wazza brought up the idea that some men might be afraid of the stress of dealing with an unhappy woman, that it might harm their health. I never would have guessed that might be a fear some men have. Total shocker for me, and I have been reading TAM for over a year and a half now.


----------



## jld

morituri said:


> Hey Dug, glad you could join the party. What's your take on some of the women who commented on her blog? You to jld, feel free to make your viewpoint on the following female posters. One small favor please, don't go off on a tangent and please comment on these posts that came from women that read her blog.


I understood this to mean you were asking me to comment, also?

Some women feel sorry for men. They seek to protect and defend them. They tend to blame the woman when there is a problem in the marriage. 

Some women have told me outright they think men are the weaker sex. They just do not expect as much from them as they do women. It is natural that such a woman would look to a woman in a struggling marriage to initiate problem-solving.

If Scary Mommy's husband divorces her, she may rethink some of her positions. She may become more like some of the women whose comments were quoted here.

Or she may decide that if her husband is not the kind of man who could see past her emotions, and reach out to her in empathy, that he was not really a good match for her, anyway.


----------



## farsidejunky

jld said:


> Feel free to start a thread. I am concerned that further discussion would be a threadjack.
> 
> I have to say, though, that it is good Wazza brought up the idea that some men might be afraid of the stress of dealing with an unhappy woman, that it might harm their health. I never would have guessed that might be a fear some men have. Total shocker for me, and I have been reading TAM for over a year and a half now.


I read him as saying what men do to themselves to provide for family is the concern.


----------



## jld

farsidejunky said:


> I read him as saying what men do to themselves to provide for family is the concern.


I think you are right. But I also understood it to apply to Scary Mommy's sitch with her husband, and my yelling at Dug.

I just do not think men are that fragile. And I am sure Dug does not. He has said men need stress in their lives to grow.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Good stress yes, short lived, difficult sometimes, but ultimately growth producing.

Chronic toxic stress, no...very damaging to health, so is severe trauma.


----------



## jld

Blossom Leigh said:


> Good stress yes, short lived, difficult sometimes, but ultimately growth producing.
> 
> Chronic toxic stress, no...very damaging to health, so is severe trauma.


If a man is in over his head in a marriage or a job, it might be best for all involved, including himself, if he gets out. I do not personally see Scary Mommy's husband in that position.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Dug, I am curious, since you are not dumb and yall communicate well, why do you call jld with your daughter in the room when its well known it upsets her? Though I do feel jld needs some balance with it. When I read her words yesterday I could feel her pain through the screen. I think you guys if possible should rent out her house and move yall to your work area. She is hurting deep and if I were in your shoes I would either be quitting my job to move back home or moving her and the boys to my work area and renting out the house. I would not choose to leave her at that level of pain long term without a short end goal in sight. I think you need to make things right. 

Sidenote, no man knowingly marries a supersensitive woman without enjoying the adrenaline rush that comes with managing said lovely creature, it can be part of the ecstacy of the relationship, so your tough man talk doesn't phase me nor convince me of its non impact on you. . I know her personality type very well. And yours... I'm married to an INTP and one of my closest girl friends is INFJ.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

jld said:


> If a man is in over his head in a marriage or a job, it might be best for all involved, including himself, if he gets out. I do not personally see Scary Mommy's husband in that position.


Can we know that?


----------



## EllisRedding

Duguesclin said:


> Always_alone, I agree with you. Many men are quick to push the buck.
> 
> The fact that this blogger does not want to have sex is somehow seen to be her issue. After all, they say her husband is working hard and he deserves not only sex, *but enthusiastic sex. *
> 
> If her husband would be too burdened by the responsibility of providing financially, it would probably be said to be her fault because she did not contribute equally financially to the marriage.
> 
> *The fact is, when you try to make men accountable, they will band together and find all kinds of excuses not to take responsibility.*
> 
> They can take the verbal abuse of a coach, but lose their cool when a woman raises her voice. I just do not get it.
> 
> Now, about JLD yelling. Yes it happens, but not that often. Yes I am responsible for her anger, but I do not seek it, nor do I have an adrenaline rush when it happens. It just happens, and it is not the end of the world.


For the first bolded, where did the husband say he wanted enthusiastic sex? Those were her words, she appears to have put that pressure on herself.

For the second bolded, what a broad generalization, geez. So men refuse to take accountability??? There are men who refuse to take accountability for the actions and likewise there are women who do the same. Accountability is not gender specific, but you seem to think it is???


----------



## SimplyAmorous

I haven't been back to this thread.... I see A LOT of '*Happy wife/ Happy Life*" spoken of here.. where I feel the husbands needs are being trampled ... this is a perfect example of what others were trying to get across to me on my "Happy Wife Happy Life " thread !! I see what you mean more clearly now..and It's NOT something I advocate at all !... 



jld said:


> *Ignore the pass. She did not mean it. Read my other posts. He needs to reestablish a connection with her.*
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


She said "I love my husband, but the sex switch is sometimes stuck.".. nothing irrational about this.. not one instance of that article spoke of him not meeting her needs..it all focused on her EXHAUSTION... there is too much on her plate.. she wants more zzzz's... the sole complaint she had about him was he wants to be intimate with his wife, this makes him feel loved .. She went on to add many sarcastic jabs ... the article sickened me .

What I want to know is.. why is this wife still working... sounds she doesn't need to be when she said this...

" He'd wouldn't flinch if I hired a cleaning company. If I ordered take-out every night. If I was never successful in my career. But my husband does drop hints when he's horny (which is constant), that if I really loved him, I'd want to have sex with him."

You know what I see ... her career is more important than her marriage/ her husbands feelings, she's choose hurting HIM (imagine if she had an extra 40 hrs a week to catch up on those zzz's)..... sounds they could afford to live on his income and get hired help...

He appears very willing to help her so they could have a smooth running lifestyle. but she doesn't want it.. she wants it HER WAY... not giving anything up at all.. while he suffers.. 

Oh I give her a little bit of credit that she would ALLOW him to find a lover on the side...even with the suggesting, her conscience KNOWS she isn't caring for him as she should.. so she comes up with this alternative. .. the way she expresses it is downright callous "I just wish you'd **** someone else!" REALLY [email protected]#$% 

What I see is a wife not willing to budge on her end at all...to meet her husband half way.. 

No wonder he is so hurt.. it's not just F**cking to him.. it's intimacy, it's connection, it's making love...a Man feels deeply loved by his wife's wanting him... (not all men, but many men)...the fact SHE has reduced it to Fu**ing speaks volumes ....that he might as well ...contact a Lawyer. 

She also mentioned *activities*, *travel* ... could some of these be reduced so she would have more Ommph and energy so she won't be so frazzled at the end of the day ?? 

With any article like this.. we are going to respond looking through our own experiences & relating to the sex drives in the article.. .. I had 2 c-sections ...within 11 months.. I never lost my desire for sex.. my biggest complaint after having each baby was .. "I can't wait that long ... I need it..I'm dying for it !"... 

If a woman feels too DRAINED to enjoy her life, I don't see why making love has to be what gets kicked off her list.. is this just an excuse .. if so.. she doesn't love him anymore.. no matter what comes out of her mouth.. 

I find her stubborn and unreasonable personally and I have more sympathy for the husband . 

Don't you love me JLD ! 



jld said:


> *I would guess. If he wants enthusiasm, he needs to inspire it*.


 There is no room to inspire it with the attitude she is giving... she is not willing to budge on her lifestyle.. she has decided what is going to go.. and that's SEX.. nothing else is on the table.. that's how I read it.. 



jld said:


> *If you are truly not compatible, then it would be a kindness to both of you to part ways*.


 I do agree with you here ! 



jld said:


> Beyond Right and Wrong, Ellis.
> 
> *He wants sex. I am showing him how he can likely get it from her without coercion.*


 I don't see it.. she is very sarcastic in her own defense why sex is just NOT important at all...I don't see a hint of humility in this wife.... Oh she said she loved him.. ...then she goes on saying "For godssakes, the sex will come". ...adding it could be YEARS.... REALLY.. her mind is made up... take it or Use the hall pass.. 

You can't inspire an attitude like this.. 



jld said:


> *I think husbands have a lot of influence. Gottman's research shows that. Why not use that influence in a productive way?*


 She's TIED his hands behind his back.. he has nothing to work with .. 



jld said:


> This 50/50 lens just seems so limited to me. If you like it, good enough. *But that gal does not strike me as powerful and threatening at all. I think it is only through the 50/50 lens that she seems threatening. *To me, and I would guess my husband, she just seems frustrated with the demands of small kids and a needy husband. Not hard to fix, at least on the husband end, if you look through a different lens.


 I think you are looking at her through yourself JLD.. 



jld said:


> Thanks for bringing up that passage, Wazza. That makes me feel, once again, sorry for her.
> 
> *Funny how we hear two different messages. To me that man is completely self-centered. She is struggling to satisfy him, in a way that she can manage. And he only looks at his own feelings.
> 
> And I am sure you see the reverse.*


 I am probably in the minority here as a woman.. but I see her as self centered due to -what I laid out above.. Being more High drive. I know how antsy it feels and the overwhelming craving to be filled -physically and emotionally -love making covers a multitude of sh** basically.. 

I relate so much more to the husband here, and would be crushed that she cared so little that he would be out there with another woman...when a woman wouldn't get jealous over something like this.. (insanely I might add).. that it would crush her soul.. she has lost the love for him as a man.. Her Job and activities mean MORE TO HER. 



jld said:


> My concern.
> 
> *Okay, I feel embarrassed that I have to ask my husband for attention. I have to ask for time alone with him. I have actually asked my daughter, in front of my husband, if she would mind stepping out of the room so her dad and I could talk privately*.
> 
> *I was just furious with Dug that it had to come to that. Tbh, it made me not even want to talk to him at that point.*


 I can so easily see why you rail at him ...then shut down .. I feel for you in this JLD.. some here may think I never take the woman's side.. it's not true... I feel for you here.. Now... If YOU shut the sex off on him. ... I'd UNDERSTAND IT!

It's very important for us to feel wanted, time spent just the 2 of you.. this is that emotional aspect you pound to the MEN here but seem to lack in your own marriage.. I know you & He always work it out... and you appreciate he can handle all you throw at him.. but really.. you know / he knows there would be so LESS to throw - if he would DO these little things you crave (on his own) on a consistent basis.. even if he doesn't need them.. YOU DO darn it --and it's not asking too much either.. 

Relate that back to the husband in the article.. just cause SHE doesn't need it.. HE DOES .... and it's not acceptable to go F**k someone else, had he known his wife was going to feel this way someday -after having 2 kids.. he wouldn't have married her!

Honestly I don't think you expect much from your husband JLD.. I know it would mean the world to you.. When he comes home, to lavish some "you & him" time.. whisk you away somewhere.. Dug, are you listening.. Make her day.. her world.


----------



## jld

Blossom Leigh said:


> Can we know that?


We cannot know anything for sure. I do not think even her husband knows for sure. But I do think approaching her with empathy, patience, and persistence could change things. It is the advice I would give my son, anyway.


----------



## jld

Dug will not be on until this afternoon. He is out cycling with our son this morning.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

jld said:


> We cannot know anything for sure. I do not think even her husband knows for sure. But I do think approaching her with empathy, patience, and persistence could change things. It is the advice I would give my son, anyway.


I would advise my son the same with one caveat... Separate what you rightfully should own versus her own self created drama. Thats her part to sort out. You can love her through it, but owning it for her stunts her growth and keeps dysfunction alive.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

jld said:


> Dug will not be on until this afternoon. He is out cycling with our son this morning.



Has he made plans for time with you, friend?


----------



## jld

SA, my concern for this woman's husband is that he is going all submissive on her. His expecting her to reach out to him first, to meet his needs, to make him feel loved . . . It just sounds submissive to me. And to me, at least, that is a turn off.

Otoh, if she is okay being the domme, then I would agree with you that it is up to her to make things right with him. It truly, in that case, is all on her, in my view, if she is willingly the dominant in the relationship.

About my own marriage . . . I cannot afford to withhold sex from my husband. It is one of the few ways I am assured of his attention and affection. I need that closeness.

He is trying to be more attentive. It is just not natural for him, though. He is an engineer through and through.


----------



## jld

Blossom Leigh said:


> Has he made plans for time with you, friend?


No. But his being willing to participate here later means a lot to me. And he came in and gave me a hug before he left with our son. I really appreciated that.

And it is a nice day, so I bet he will suggest we take a walk later. That is an effort, too.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

jld said:


> No. But his being willing to participate here later means a lot to me. And he came in and gave me a hug before he left with our son. I really appreciated that.
> 
> And it is a nice day, so I bet he will suggest we take a walk later. That is an effort, too.


And maybe some bam chica wow wow... Later


----------



## farsidejunky

SimplyAmorous said:


> I haven't been back to this thread.... I see A LOT of '*Happy wife/ Happy Life*" spoken of here.. where I feel the husbands needs are being trampled ... this is a perfect example of what others were trying to get across to me on my "Happy Wife Happy Life " thread !! I see what you mean more clearly now..and It's NOT something I advocate at all !...
> 
> 
> 
> She said "I love my husband, but the sex switch is sometimes stuck.".. nothing irrational about this.. not one instance of that article spoke of him not meeting her needs..it all focused on her EXHAUSTION... there is too much on her plate.. she wants more zzzz's... the sole complaint she had about him was he wants to be intimate with his wife, this makes him feel loved .. She went on to add many sarcastic jabs ... the article sickened me .
> 
> What I want to know is.. why is this wife still working... sounds she doesn't need to be when she said this...
> 
> " He'd wouldn't flinch if I hired a cleaning company. If I ordered take-out every night. If I was never successful in my career. But my husband does drop hints when he's horny (which is constant), that if I really loved him, I'd want to have sex with him."
> 
> You know what I see ... her career is more important than her marriage/ her husbands feelings, she's choose hurting HIM (imagine if she had an extra 40 hrs a week to catch up on those zzz's)..... sounds they could afford to live on his income and get hired help...
> 
> He appears very willing to help her so they could have a smooth running lifestyle. but she doesn't want it.. she wants it HER WAY... not giving anything up at all.. while he suffers..
> 
> Oh I give her a little bit of credit that she would ALLOW him to find a lover on the side...even with the suggesting, her conscience KNOWS she isn't caring for him as she should.. so she comes up with this alternative. .. the way she expresses it is downright callous "I just wish you'd **** someone else!" REALLY [email protected]#$%
> 
> What I see is a wife not willing to budge on her end at all...to meet her husband half way..
> 
> No wonder he is so hurt.. it's not just F**cking to him.. it's intimacy, it's connection, it's making love...a Man feels deeply loved by his wife's wanting him... (not all men, but many men)...the fact SHE has reduced it to Fu**ing speaks volumes ....that he might as well ...contact a Lawyer.
> 
> She also mentioned *activities*, *travel* ... could some of these be reduced so she would have more Ommph and energy so she won't be so frazzled at the end of the day ??
> 
> With any article like this.. we are going to respond looking through our own experiences & relating to the sex drives in the article.. .. I had 2 c-sections ...within 11 months.. I never lost my desire for sex.. my biggest complaint after having each baby was .. "I can't wait that long ... I need it..I'm dying for it !"...
> 
> If a woman feels too DRAINED to enjoy her life, I don't see why making love has to be what gets kicked off her list.. is this just an excuse .. if so.. she doesn't love him anymore.. no matter what comes out of her mouth..
> 
> I find her stubborn and unreasonable personally and I have more sympathy for the husband .
> 
> Don't you love me JLD !
> 
> There is no room to inspire it with the attitude she is giving... she is not willing to budge on her lifestyle.. she has decided what is going to go.. and that's SEX.. nothing else is on the table.. that's how I read it..
> 
> I do agree with you here !
> 
> I don't see it.. she is very sarcastic in her own defense why sex is just NOT important at all...I don't see a hint of humility in this wife.... Oh she said she loved him.. ...then she goes on saying "For godssakes, the sex will come". ...adding it could be YEARS.... REALLY.. her mind is made up... take it or Use the hall pass..
> 
> You can't inspire an attitude like this..
> 
> She's TIED his hands behind his back.. he has nothing to work with ..
> 
> I think you are looking at her through yourself JLD..
> 
> I am probably in the minority here as a woman.. but I see her as self centered due to -what I laid out above.. Being more High drive. I know how antsy it feels and the overwhelming craving to be filled -physically and emotionally -love making covers a multitude of sh** basically..
> 
> I relate so much more to the husband here, and would be crushed that she cared so little that he would be out there with another woman...when a woman wouldn't get jealous over something like this.. (insanely I might add).. that it would crush her soul.. she has lost the love for him as a man.. Her Job and activities mean MORE TO HER.
> 
> I can so easily see why you rail at him ...then shut down .. I feel for you in this JLD.. some here may think I never take the woman's side.. it's not true... I feel for you here.. Now... If YOU shut the sex off on him. ... I'd UNDERSTAND IT!
> 
> It's very important for us to feel wanted, time spent just the 2 of you.. this is that emotional aspect you pound to the MEN here but seem to lack in your own marriage.. I know you & He always work it out... and you appreciate he can handle all you throw at him.. but really.. you know / he knows there would be so LESS to throw - if he would DO these little things you crave (on his own) on a consistent basis.. even if he doesn't need them.. YOU DO darn it --and it's not asking too much either..
> 
> Relate that back to the husband in the article.. just cause SHE doesn't need it.. HE DOES .... and it's not acceptable to go F**k someone else, had he known his wife was going to feel this way someday -after having 2 kids.. he wouldn't have married her!
> 
> Honestly I don't think you expect much from your husband JLD.. I know it would mean the world to you.. When he comes home, to lavish some "you & him" time.. whisk you away somewhere.. Dug, are you listening.. Make her day.. her world.


I just wanted to quote this because it nailed what is being sent yet not received.

Well put, SA.


----------



## farsidejunky

jld said:


> SA, my concern for this woman's husband is that he is going all submissive on her. His expecting her to reach out to him first, to meet his needs, to make him feel loved . . . It just sounds submissive to me. And to me, at least, that is a turn off.
> 
> Otoh, if she is okay being the domme, then I would agree with you that it is up to her to make things right with him. It truly, in that case, is all on her, in my view, if she is willingly the dominant in the relationship.
> 
> About my own marriage . . . I cannot afford to withhold sex from my husband. It is one of the few ways I am assured of his attention and affection. I need that closeness.
> 
> He is trying to be more attentive. It is just not natural for him, though. He is an engineer through and through.


Confirmation bias. When we look for things through a specific lens, it should come as no surprise when we find them.


----------



## jld

farsidejunky said:


> Confirmation bias. When we look for things through a specific lens, it should come as no surprise when we find them.


What is confirmation bias here? I was expressing my opinion.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

farsidejunky said:


> I just wanted to quote this because it nailed what is being sent yet not received.
> 
> Well put, SA.


Yep.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

jld said:


> SA, my concern for this woman's husband is that he is going all submissive on her. His expecting her to reach out to him first, to meet his needs, to make him feel loved . . . It just sounds submissive to me. And to me, at least, that is a turn off.
> 
> Otoh, if she is okay being the domme, then I would agree with you that it is up to her to make things right with him. It truly, in that case, is all on her, in my view, if she is willingly the dominant in the relationship.
> 
> About my own marriage . . . I cannot afford to withhold sex from my husband. It is one of the few ways I am assured of his attention and affection. I need that closeness.
> 
> He is trying to be more attentive. It is just not natural for him, though. He is an engineer through and through.


I too am of the frame of mind that the man should be the one chasing, but when the woman hurts her man I expect her to make amends. Then retreat to a space that gives room for the man to resume his man space, who generally enjoys pursuit when its healthy.


----------



## farsidejunky

jld said:


> What is confirmation bias here? I was expressing my opinion.


That you associate need with neediness and therefore being submissive.

So need=submissive.

When you correlate those two, any semblance of anything but giving from a man is negative. Your first instinct is to look for that.

That is a glaring example of confirmation bias.

We all have it, JLD.


----------



## EllisRedding

farsidejunky said:


> I just wanted to quote this because it nailed what is being sent yet not received.
> 
> Well put, SA.


Exactly, well spoken as always SA  :smthumbup::yay:

I actually thought you had seen this thread and that was part of the reason for the HWHL thread you started (good thread btw)


----------



## jld

farsidejunky said:


> That you associate need with neediness and therefore being submissive.
> 
> So need=submissive.
> 
> When you correlate those two, any semblance of anything but giving from a man is negative. Your first instinct is to look for that.
> 
> That is a glaring example of confirmation bias.
> 
> We all have it, JLD.


Far, I don't think you are using the term correctly.

The way I see it, if she is responsible for the relationship, she is the dominant. If he is responsible, then I suggest he start following my advice and proactively inspire change in her, mostly by empathy.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Blossom Leigh said:


> I too am of the frame of mind that the man should be the one chasing, *but when the woman hurts her man I expect her to make amends.* Then retreat to a space that gives room for the man to resume his man space, who generally enjoys pursuit when its healthy.


What this wife SAID TO HIM is equivalent to a husband telling his wife she is FAT & ugly & he isn't attracted to her anymore.. she kicked him where it hurts the most.. if that's irrational, then she needs to get herself some logic fast & make amends for what spilled out of her mouth. 

He was HURT, blindsided ...I know JLD looks at this upside down over me... in my world.. if a man WASN'T HURT BY THIS .. I would be MORE BOTHERED ..as nothing can MOVE HIM, he's like a STONE.. unmovable....

When a man shows Emotion, is sensitive to our words.. chances are these husbands will be MORE sensitive to OUR NEEDS TOO, when we hurt (we want this in our marriages! to work through issues -his caring for how we feel. and us caring for how he feels)...

If we kick him in the balls with our words/ attitude.. *it is ON US to make amends for this*.. just as it would be for him to do if he hurt us deeply.. 

It even said he would throw HINTS about wanting sex..MY GOD , he wasn't even demanding it.. She's EVIL.. to come back & speak how it's so "repulsive, disgusting"...

I just feel bad for the guy... Resentment will strangle him if he tries to coddle her..


----------



## Fozzy

Wow, I go on vacation for a few days and this turns in to my longest thread yet!


----------



## SimplyAmorous

EllisRedding said:


> *Exactly, well spoken as always SA  :smthumbup::yay:
> 
> I actually thought you had seen this thread and that was part of the reason for the HWHL thread you started (good thread btw)*


NOPE...glad you mentioned this ..and I sure am happy I posted if you got that CRAZY [email protected]# 

I started my thread -due to a post by @Wolf1974 on ANOTHER THREAD .. I generally appreciate HIS views , being on the conservative side of the aisle but he rammed that Phrase into the ground - as if any man who thinks LIKE THIS is inviting his life to be destroyed .. and I got to thinking.. well.. my Husband is one of those men!!! . and it hasn't destructed our marriage.. so let's open that subject up a little.. 

But granted. I LOVE SEX ! *and I need his happiness too*.. or I would be bothered.. cause I am sensitive LIKE THAT. ... we BOTH ARE.. which is very helpful to our marriage. 

But yeah.. I can see if that phrase is used in this manner.. well.. the man might as well jump off a bridge. I would never agree with it.


----------



## always_alone

farsidejunky said:


> That you associate need with neediness and therefore being submissive.
> 
> So need=submissive.
> 
> When you correlate those two, any semblance of anything but giving from a man is negative. Your first instinct is to look for that.
> 
> That is a glaring example of confirmation bias.
> 
> .


No more confirmation bias than assuming that a woman's need is self-entitled, self-centred, selfish and inconsiderate, IMHO.

Personally, I find it a bit rich, all of this "how cruel and selfish she is" simply for expressing her feelings about what is going on with her. IME, I feel quite disconnected from my SO during sex, as I know that he doesn't see me as sexy, desirable, or anything special. He is just as happy to substitute with porn as he is to be with me -- indeed, I believe he prefers it as he will eagerly await me being away. All I am is something "real" that gives a nice alternative to the hand. I'm pretty sure you could just swap me out for someone else, and he wouldn't know the difference. 

I continue because for me it is better than nothing. But hey, no problem, right? He is oblivious and completely sexually satisfied. Yay. What an awesome SO I am!


----------



## EllisRedding

always_alone said:


> No more confirmation bias than assuming that a woman's need is self-entitled, self-centred, selfish and inconsiderate, IMHO.
> 
> Personally, I find it a bit rich, all of this "how cruel and selfish she is" simply for expressing her feelings about what is going on with her. IME, I feel quite disconnected from my SO during sex, as I know that he doesn't see me as sexy, desirable, or anything special. He is just as happy to substitute with porn as he is to be with me -- indeed, I believe he prefers it as he will eagerly await me being away. All I am is something "real" that gives a nice alternative to the hand. I'm pretty sure you could just swap me out for someone else, and he wouldn't know the difference.
> 
> I continue because for me it is better than nothing. But hey, no problem, right? He is oblivious and completely sexually satisfied. Yay. What an awesome SO I am!


I don't believe anyone has criticized her feelings or saying she can't feel that way. The criticism is based on how she has handled/responded to it.


----------



## farsidejunky

always_alone said:


> No more confirmation bias than assuming that a woman's need is self-entitled, self-centred, selfish and inconsiderate, IMHO.
> 
> Personally, I find it a bit rich, all of this "how cruel and selfish she is" simply for expressing her feelings about what is going on with her. IME, I feel quite disconnected from my SO during sex, as I know that he doesn't see me as sexy, desirable, or anything special. He is just as happy to substitute with porn as he is to be with me -- indeed, I believe he prefers it as he will eagerly await me being away. All I am is something "real" that gives a nice alternative to the hand. I'm pretty sure you could just swap me out for someone else, and he wouldn't know the difference.
> 
> I continue because for me it is better than nothing. But hey, no problem, right? He is oblivious and completely sexually satisfied. Yay. What an awesome SO I am!


A_A, I would direct you to my last sentence of post 544.


----------



## T&T

jld said:


> I have to say, though, that it is good Wazza brought up the idea that some men might be afraid of the stress of dealing with an unhappy woman, that it might harm their health. I never would have guessed that might be a fear some men have. Total shocker for me, and I have been reading TAM for over a year and a half now.


Some men may just feel it's not worth it and walk...

I'm not "afraid" of stress. But, I said it before and I'll say it again, if my wife said those words to me it would be very difficult to not walk. IMO she's not worth anymore effort. It would be a waste of energy. She has zero respect for him. 

I lead, expect to be respected, work my ass off, provide and we're very traditional in our marriage. She has come to expect certain things from me and I from HER. If we don't meet each others needs the marriage goes south and we're guilty of that too. 

TBH, I see this woman as a total beatch to say what she did to her husband. But, that's just my opinion. SA said it best!


----------



## always_alone

EllisRedding said:


> I don't believe anyone has criticized her feelings or saying she can't feel that way. The criticism is based on how she has handled/responded to it.


Yep, and it isn't enough that she went to the doctor to get her hormones and health checked, faked the porn star sex to the best of her ability, wracked her brains to think of a way they can both be happy. 

Do you honestly think that offer of a hall pass didn't cost her greatly?

No, she is in deficit because what she suggested was "hurtful", doesn't adequately address his sexual needs, and because she doesn't have it in her to feel the way she is "supposed" to. 

Meanwhile, the poor guy need not lift a finger, and is clearly deserving of much sympathy because his wife is so cruel and selfish.


----------



## farsidejunky

always_alone said:


> Yep, and it isn't enough that she went to the doctor to get her hormones and health checked, faked the porn star sex to the best of her ability, wracked her brains to think of a way they can both be happy.
> 
> Do you honestly think that offer of a hall pass didn't cost her greatly?
> 
> No, she is in deficit because what she suggested was "hurtful", doesn't adequately address his sexual needs, and because she doesn't have it in her to feel the way she is "supposed" to.
> 
> Meanwhile, the poor guy need not lift a finger, and is clearly deserving of much sympathy because his wife is so cruel and selfish.


Let's not leave out travel and work as priorities over her husband. Conveniently omitting that would make it much easier to see her side of things.


----------



## always_alone

farsidejunky said:


> Let's not leave out travel and work as priorities over her husband. Conveniently omitting that would make it much easier to see her side of things.


Right, because it's not possible that they actually need the dual income. And if she is doing it as part of her personal fulfillment and well-being in life? Clearly more evidence of her selfish entitlement.


----------



## farsidejunky

always_alone said:


> Right, because it's not possible that they actually need the dual income. And if she is doing it as part of her personal fulfillment and well-being in life? Clearly more evidence of her selfish entitlement.


It was made clear in the post that they do not need the income.

Next?


----------



## always_alone

farsidejunky said:


> It was made clear in the post that they do not need the income.
> 
> Next?


Because with her salary, she can afford a couple of hours of maid support? Insufficient information, I'm afraid.

Plus, I notice that you most conveniently ignored any need she might have for personal fulfillment.


----------



## farsidejunky

always_alone said:


> Right, because it's not possible that they actually need the dual income. And if she is doing it as part of her personal fulfillment and well-being in life? Clearly more evidence of her selfish entitlement.


Why do you sympathize with her, A_A?

Or do you sympathize with both of them but feel the need to defend the gender?


----------



## farsidejunky

always_alone said:


> Because with her salary, she can afford a couple of hours of maid support? Insufficient information, I'm afraid.
> 
> Plus, I notice that you most conveniently ignored any need she might have for personal fulfillment.


If her personal fulfillment takes up too much energy for her to contribute towards her husband's needs, she should do without one.

As it stands she wants his support but is unwilling to reciprocate.

Marriages are earned by both parties.


----------



## T&T

farsidejunky said:


> Marriages are earned by both parties.


^^^THIS! Simple but SO true.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

SimplyAmorous said:


> What this wife SAID TO HIM is equivalent to a husband telling his wife she is FAT & ugly & he isn't attracted to her anymore.. she kicked him where it hurts the most.. if that's irrational, then she needs to get herself some logic fast & make amends for what spilled out of her mouth.
> 
> He was HURT, blindsided ...I know JLD looks at this upside down over me... in my world.. if a man WASN'T HURT BY THIS .. I would be MORE BOTHERED ..as nothing can MOVE HIM, he's like a STONE.. unmovable....
> 
> When a man shows Emotion, is sensitive to our words.. chances are these husbands will be MORE sensitive to OUR NEEDS TOO, when we hurt (we want this in our marriages! to work through issues -his caring for how we feel. and us caring for how he feels)...
> 
> If we kick him in the balls with our words/ attitude.. *it is ON US to make amends for this*.. just as it would be for him to do if he hurt us deeply..
> 
> 
> 
> It even said he would throw HINTS about wanting sex..MY GOD , he wasn't even demanding it.. She's EVIL.. to come back & speak how it's so "repulsive, disgusting"...
> 
> I just feel bad for the guy... Resentment will strangle him if he tries to coddle her..


Exactly... 

Now there is a magical space of empathy blended with accountability, but at the end of the day, she is responsible for the words that come from her mouth.


----------



## EllisRedding

farsidejunky said:


> If her personal fulfillment takes up too much energy for her to contribute towards her husband's needs, she should do without one.
> 
> As it stands she wants his support but is unwilling to reciprocate.
> 
> Marriages are earned by both parties.


Exactly. If personal fulfillment is her priority, even if that means her marriage suffering, well, she should have never gotten married or should just get divorced. The latter would allow her all the time in the world to focus on her personal fulfillment without having to worry about that pesky little husband.


----------



## always_alone

farsidejunky said:


> Why do you sympathize with her, A_A?
> 
> Or do you sympathize with both of them but feel the need to defend the gender?


Because all she has done is write a blog post describing her feelings and she is being trashed as all that could possibly be wrong with a woman. 

Because she is being asked to do something that makes her feel empty, cold, and used, which is something I can identify with, and quite perfectly understand why she might find this a huge turn off and hurdle.

And, TBH, because I do feel less sympathy for his side, as I don't quite believe the offer of a hall pass is really all that crushing or hurtful. I've lost count of the men I've seen right here on TAM requesting them, threatening them, demanding them. Makes it hard to believe it is really all that awful.


----------



## farsidejunky

always_alone said:


> Because all she has done is write a blog post describing her feelings and she is being trashed as all that could possibly be wrong with a woman.
> 
> Because she is being asked to do something that makes her feel empty, cold, and used, which is something I can identify with, and quite perfectly understand why she might find this a huge turn off and hurdle.
> 
> And, TBH, because I do feel less sympathy for his side, as I don't quite believe the offer of a hall pass is really all that crushing or hurtful. I've lost count of the men I've seen right here on TAM requesting them, threatening them, demanding them. Makes it hard to believe it is really all that awful.


Coming from someone who got offered one about a year ago, it is soul crushing. 

At least, if you care about her, it is. In order to not see it as soul crushing, it requires that you assume that the man is empty and selfish.

She said herself it nearly reduced him to tears. How can that be ignored?


----------



## jld

farsidejunky said:


> Coming from someone who got offered one about a year ago, it is soul crushing.
> 
> At least, if you care about her, it is. In order to not see it as soul crushing, it requires that you assume that the man is empty and selfish.
> 
> She said herself it nearly reduced him to tears. How can that be ignored?


So you identify with him, far?


----------



## farsidejunky

jld said:


> So you identify with him, far?


Yes. Any man who has been through a sexless period probably can.


----------



## always_alone

EllisRedding said:


> Exactly. If personal fulfillment is her priority, even if that means her marriage suffering, well, she should have never gotten married or should just get divorced. The latter would allow her all the time in the world to focus on her personal fulfillment without having to worry about that pesky little husband.


Well, and if his his own sexual accommodation is to be the priority, then he should either take the hall pass or divorce her for someone more adequate. That would give him all his personal fulfillment without having to worry about that pesky little wife.


----------



## farsidejunky

always_alone said:


> Well, and if his his own sexual accommodation is to be the priority, then he should either take the hall pass or divorce her for someone more adequate. That would give him all his personal fulfillment without having to worry about that pesky little wife.


I see we finally agree on something.


----------



## EllisRedding

always_alone said:


> Well, and if his his own sexual accommodation is to be the priority, then he should either take the hall pass or divorce her for someone more adequate. That would give him all his personal fulfillment without having to worry about that pesky little wife.


Yup, all the more reason going their separate ways makes sense.


----------



## jld

farsidejunky said:


> Yes. Any man who has been through a sexless period probably can.


I did not remember that your wife had offered you a hall pass. Did you mention it in your thread?


----------



## EllisRedding

jld said:


> I did not remember that your wife had offered you a *hall pass*.


Lol, pretty sure a hall pass is what you get so you can go to the bathroom in school :grin2:


----------



## jld

Far, I am sorry about your pain. You are my friend, and I care about you.

Your marriage is in a much stronger place than last year this time. You had to take initiative to get it there. That is pretty much what I would ask the blogger's husband to do, too.


----------



## always_alone

farsidejunky said:


> I see we finally agree on something.


Absolutely! And I'll see you on the next thread, with the guy who is scratching his head, wondering why his second wife no longer wants to get with him, and thinks all he cares about is sex.


----------



## farsidejunky

jld said:


> I did not remember that your wife had offered you a hall pass. Did you mention it in your thread?


I thought I did. 

We were reorganizing our closet in May or June last year. She expressed frustration with me because she was not interested in sex with me and I had issued my boundary about not remaining in a sexless marriage. I gave her a passive aggressive "okay" as I was still kind of lost at the time as well. Then she said it would be best for me to just go find someone else to sleep with. My reaction was about the same as the husband in the article. 

From my wife at that time it was resentment and her trying to hurt me because she herself was hurting. But that did not excuse it. And part of me wanted to do it just to hurt her and bring some resolution to our lousy limbo at the time.

But I did not.


----------



## jld

farsidejunky said:


> I thought I did.
> 
> We were reorganizing our closet in May or June last year. She expressed frustration with me because she was not interested in sex with me and I had issued my boundary about not remaining in a sexless marriage. I gave her a passive aggressive "okay" as I was still kind of lost at the time as well. Then she said it would be best for me I to just go find someone else to sleep with. My reaction was about the same as the husband in the article.
> 
> From my wife at that time it was resentment and her trying to hurt me because she herself was hurting. But that did not excuse it. And part of me wanted to do it just to hurt her and bring some resolution to our lousy limbo at the time.
> 
> But I did not.


I am glad you did not, far. It would just have added problems.

I just asked Dug, and he said he did not remember it from your thread, either. 

I think the point aa is making is that the sexlessness is a symptom of a bigger problem. That problem is what needs to be addressed.


----------



## farsidejunky

I guess I did not. It sucked.

Yes there is a problem that is causing the sexlessness. But had the author said her husband was terrible and not meeting her needs, I would lay the 2x4 over his head. But the fact that she conveyed the opposite tells me he is either meeting her needs or is trying and she is not adequately conveying them to him.


----------



## jld

farsidejunky said:


> I guess I did not. It sucked.
> 
> Yes there is a problem that is causing the sexlessness. But had the author said her husband was terrible and not meeting her needs, I would lay the 2x4 over his head. But the fact that she conveyed the opposite tells me he is either meeting her needs or is trying and she is not adequately conveying them to him.


She may not know them herself, far. That is an area where some proactivity from him could be helpful. I think his interest would be seen as a deposit in her emotional bank account.


----------



## farsidejunky

But the assumption is that he hasn't done that already. In fairness it is not entirely clear, but she indicates he is trying very hard. 

To lay at his feet as his responsibility is misplaced. It is her responsibility to convey what she wants and needs. And to a degree, I think she is when she tells him to leave her alone.


----------



## Fozzy

FrenchFry said:


> Maybe that's the difference in perspective here, @jld.
> 
> I see her entire blog as hyperbolic. Others are taking it as dead truth.
> 
> Some people use hyperbole to communicate. Some don't. Some ignore it and some don't. Maybe she wrote this whole thing to get hits--mostly hyperbole to get attention but with a smattering of truth inside.
> 
> 
> We seem to have these conversations about perspectives a lot. Not to threadjack, but I thought this was an amusing blog because I could relate to the less outlandish parts while discarding the rest.
> 
> 
> Everyone has a subject where they can do so.


Some of her stuff is clearly hyperbole. This didn't strike me as one of those posts. The specificity with which she recounts the conversation and his reaction didn't appear to be done for humors sake.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

farsidejunky said:


> But the assumption is that he hasn't done that already. In fairness it is not entirely clear, but she indicates he is trying very hard.
> 
> To lay at his feet as his responsibility is misplaced. It is her responsibility to convey what she wants and needs. And to a degree, I think she is when she tells him to leave her alone.


Telling her to figure it out and get back to him may have him waiting a long, long time, far.

What would have happened if you had taken that approach with your wife last year?


----------



## farsidejunky

We would be done. 

But if you remember correctly, my wife used to move the goal posts on her needs with me. When I told her I would no longer accept that, and it was her responsibility to communicate what she wanted as opposed to my responsibility to read her mind, she started doing it without moving the goal posts.

That would be my approach with the author. Communicate to me what I can do to help you, and make a concerted effort to meet my needs, by X date, or we will have to sit down and come to an amicable divorce reaolution.


----------



## jld

farsidejunky said:


> We would be done.
> 
> But if you remember correctly, my wife used to move the goal posts on her needs with me. When I told her I would no longer accept that, and it was her responsibility to communicate what she wanted as opposed to my responsibility to read her mind, she started doing it without moving the goal posts.
> 
> That would be my approach with the author. Communicate to me what I can do to help you, and make a concerted effort to meet my needs, by X date, or we will have to sit down and come to an amicable divorce reaolution.


But there was a lot more to it than that, right?

Far, it has not been a straight path for you, and I doubt it would be for them, either. You have shown a lot of patience and persistence with your wife. You have also taken initiative plenty of times, and been very nurturing. I think that husband could do that, too.

Lol, I think we all wish we had the husband on TAM!


----------



## morituri

SimplyAmorous said:


> What this wife SAID TO HIM is equivalent to a husband telling his wife she is FAT & ugly & he isn't attracted to her anymore.. she kicked him where it hurts the most.. if that's irrational, then she needs to get herself some logic fast & make amends for what spilled out of her mouth.


I totally agree but there are men out there who have done the same thing and it had the same hurting effect on their wives. Case in point is *MAJDEATH* who was in the military and he told his fiancee, twenty some years back, to go have sex with other guys. She did, even after they were married, but she told him years later that his "permission" hurt her deeply for she took it as a sign that he didn't love her. 

MAJDEATH became the poster boy of the "I give you a hall pass but don't fall in love". There is no more extra-marital sex by his wife and they are now totally devoted to one another, nevertheless he still is suffering from his bad choice. It wouldn't surprise me if Scary Mommy becomes the female version of MAJDEATH and if so, just like him, she will have no one to blame but herself.


----------



## farsidejunky

jld said:


> But there was a lot more to it than that, right?
> 
> Far, it has not been a straight path for you, and I doubt it would be for them, either. You have shown a lot of patience and persistence with your wife. You have also taken initiative plenty of times, and been very nurturing. I think that husband could do that, too.
> 
> Lol, I think we all wish we had the husband on TAM!


There was. It required patience. It required measuring trajectory rather than day to day. Nurturing when required, consequences when necessary.

ETA: But it also required a timeline. She had until the end of August. She showed me enough by the end of July to do away with it.


----------



## Duguesclin

Blossom Leigh said:


> Dug, I am curious, since you are not dumb and yall communicate well, why do you call jld with your daughter in the room when its well known it upsets her? Though I do feel jld needs some balance with it. When I read her words yesterday I could feel her pain through the screen. I think you guys if possible should rent out her house and move yall to your work area. She is hurting deep and if I were in your shoes I would either be quitting my job to move back home or moving her and the boys to my work area and renting out the house. I would not choose to leave her at that level of pain long term without a short end goal in sight. I think you need to make things right.
> 
> Sidenote, no man knowingly marries a supersensitive woman without enjoying the adrenaline rush that comes with managing said lovely creature, it can be part of the ecstacy of the relationship, so your tough man talk doesn't phase me nor convince me of its non impact on you. . I know her personality type very well. And yours... I'm married to an INTP and one of my closest girl friends is INFJ.


Blossom, ignoring what JLD is telling me is not smart of me. It is just that in the moment when I am ready to call her, I call, and then I think. I should do the reverse, think first, and then call from a separate room from where my daughter is. Planning my next move has never been my strong suit and JLD and others have suffered from it.

Now about my job, it has been 3 years now and I am not exactly where I wanted to be. I still enjoy it very much, but I recognize the distance is an issue. I agree that I probably need to plan for a change.

For the adrenaline, I do not get any excitement in seeing JLD mad. But I am not going to lose my temper or my cool just because someone is upset with me.

My wife has said a lot of crazy things to me over the years. I do not take them to heart. She is speaking out of anger and frustration. This blogger is stressed. She has little kids and she does not care about sex. What is wrong with that? The husband can choose to be hurt or he can try to understand (I am not saying accepting it).

I have much respect for women raising little kids. It is very difficult. I did not have to do it and I am grateful for that. Trying to understand my wife when she is mad is the least I can do for her.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Duguesclin said:


> Blossom, ignoring what JLD is telling me is not smart of me. It is just that in the moment when I am ready to call her, I call, and then I think. I should do the reverse, think first, and then call from a separate room from where my daughter is. Planning my next move has never been my strong suit and JLD and others have suffered from it.
> 
> Now about my job, it has been 3 years now and I am not exactly where I wanted to be. I still enjoy it very much, but I recognize the distance is an issue. I agree that I probably need to plan for a change.
> 
> For the adrenaline, I do not get any excitement in seeing JLD mad. But I am not going to lose my temper or my cool just because someone is upset with me.
> 
> My wife has said a lot of crazy things to me over the years. I do not take them to heart. She is speaking out of anger and frustration. This blogger is stressed. She has little kids and she does not care about sex. What is wrong with that? The husband can choose to be hurt or he can try to understand (I am not saying accepting it).
> 
> I have much respect for women raising little kids. It is very difficult. I did not have to do it and I am grateful for that. Trying to understand my wife when she is mad is the least I can do for her.


Then we agree, he can be understanding and empathetic without accepting it.

I'm glad you are considering making a shift in work/living logistics for jld.


Would you ever appreciate jld being able to express herself without saying the "crazy things?" OR have you ever asked her to watch her words?


----------



## SimplyAmorous

always_alone said:


> *Yep, and it isn't enough that she went to the doctor to get her hormones and health checked, faked the porn star sex to the best of her ability, wracked her brains to think of a way they can both be happy*.


 See I do NOT think she wracked her brains.... why isn't anyone acknowledging the simple fact she is doing nothing to cut down her schedule.. *activities, travel, work*..so she is not driving herself INSANE ...when clearly her husband is WILLING and ABLE to hire a maid, they can go out & eat more.. this was addressed in that article.. what am I missing.. 

She outright REFUSES to change HER lifestyle but chooses to cut off the sex, what he craves more than anything from the woman he loves. 



> *Do you honestly think that offer of a hall pass didn't cost her greatly?*


 Turn this around for a moment.... if a husband came at you with the obnoxious attitude SHE DID in presenting this so called HALL PASS... again.. saying "I just wish you'd **** someone else!" Imagine the man saying when she wants some affection, a little of his time ..... "You are too much of a DRAIN ON ME, can't you just GO, find another guy you can talk to, get your emotional needs from him, leave me the hell alone already!".. 

That's what it's equivalent to.. if some women came here with a callous story as this.. Oh we'd all be up in arms, what a JACKA** she married.... .. but No.. we take the woman's side in this .. when she talks like this.. Can't wrap my brain around this one Ladies!! 



> *No, she is in deficit because what she suggested was "hurtful", doesn't adequately address his sexual needs, and because she doesn't have it in her to feel the way she is "supposed" to.*


 there are many things people don't like to do.. some have difficult dirty low paying jobs, can hardly meet their bills...very stressful, they work with A-holes, but they get up every morning because it's a part of their life.. they have a family to support.. they are even thankful they have a JOB... (it's all about Gratitude) this woman seems to have very little.. does she want to push her husband out the door? Physical Intimacy is a significant part of the vows we take when we marry.... it's just not OK ... 



> *Meanwhile, the poor guy need not lift a finger, and is clearly deserving of much sympathy because his wife is so cruel and selfish*.


 He sounded like a GOOD MAN To me .. as he wasn't the demanding type.. or she would have pointed this out. when she said he throws HINTS.. I see that as more subtle.. (similar to my own husband) also I know my husband would just SUFFER ...put himself down for me, the family...

Which again.. paints him as a very GOOD MORAL MAN to NOT take the pass... this gives him many points in my book (even if I may find him rather foolish! I wouldn't be that wonderful I'll tell you !)..... but very very few for her .. and her attitude to have such a good man & treat him like this.. she doesn't appear she wants to work on anything... but expects him to wait YEARS for her to get the romance & passion back.. 

I just see him as one of those Good men who stay for the love of his family... That's what I read into it.. even with her attitude.. he's hanging on hoping it will get better.. but I also feel the sacrifice is TOO GREAT...


----------



## SimplyAmorous

EllisRedding said:


> *I don't believe anyone has criticized her feelings or saying she can't feel that way. The criticism is based on how she has handled/responded to it.*


I'm all for bare bones honesty.. harsh as it may be.. there is a scripture that says







...that's the scary part... you see.. this wife admits this has been STEWING FOR YEARS... she is VENTING ....now I don't know about you.. but when I vent.. or write my feelings out, what I am struggling with relationship wise... I realize how God awful nasty it may sound reading it back...it's letting off some steam *in the moment.*. usually I am HOT when I write.. getting it out on paper cools me down and I see another angle..specifically where I am WRONG, or need to re-adjust my attitude to seek harmony. 

If I remained THAT HOT... to the point of posting an article such as this - laced with a sarcastic tone with very little humility after it has been thought about thoroughly...it really is very telling of her







in regards to him.. 

Now..if she admitted to feeling those awful things (even saying them)... then feeling sorry that she hurt him like that, like a splash of cold water hit her face.. her suddenly realizing "I went TOO FAR!"...that she wished , would give anything to take those words back.. to NOT feel this way.. I would find "remorse" in that... something to work with....

I just don't see this ....she felt strongly enough to POST it online for all to view... it's pretty "cemented"..


----------



## Duguesclin

Blossom Leigh said:


> Would you ever appreciate jld being able to express herself without saying the "crazy things?" OR have you ever asked her to watch her words?


Why fixing something that is not broken? JLD is fine, she is a sweet lady and I am very happy. 

I am glad JLD feels safe to express herself. To me, it is a sign of great trust.


----------



## ocotillo

always_alone said:


> Because all she has done is write a blog post describing her feelings and she is being trashed as all that could possibly be wrong with a woman.


AA, this author has a very robust internet presence. Multiple FB accounts, Twitter, a personal blog, articles at Scary Mommy, etc. Maybe the drunken narcissist schtick is just that. --An act. An alter ego. It's hard to tell.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Duguesclin said:


> Why fixing something that is not broken? JLD is fine, she is a sweet lady and I am very happy.
> 
> I am glad JLD feels safe to express herself. To me, it is a sign of great trust.


I totally agree she is super sweet. And freedom of expression is great.

I personally aspire to gain responsiveness without yelling. It bothers me that she yells at you regardless of its affect on you. Its why I challenge her to try firm, but calm and clear, like the example I wrote that she liked.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Duguesclin said:


> *Why fixing something that is not broken? JLD is fine, she is a sweet lady and I am very happy.
> 
> I am glad JLD feels safe to express herself. To me, it is a sign of great trust.*


She is a very very sweet lady.. I have a very difficult time imaging her loosing it screaming at you.. but I can EASILY understand her frustration with you, that she has so openly shared with us here...in getting your attention, her having to ask, throw rocks at the fort...it's more than seeking & knocking.. the Engineer's "I have no need of anything" - therefore I don't understand why she does ... it's like you do need a BRICK









.... she tells me I can say anything to you cause NOTHING would offend you anyway! Just let it rip ! ha ha

It's good to see you acknowledge these things & praise her as you do.. honestly I feel it's well deserved. :smile2:


----------



## SimplyAmorous

EllisRedding said:


> *Yup, all the more reason going their separate ways makes sense.*


I read my husband the full article a little bit ago... he says it's "nasty"... a woman like that can NOT be dealt with, she doesn't love him, and yeah.. take the hall pass or divorce her. He would feel it is morally wrong to take the hall pass himself.. but he would understand anyone who would & not judge them if they so choosed. 


I was reading some of the replies under her article. OMG.. the insight!!.. I wanted to slap LIKES all over them.. I feel very strongly to the wrong being done to this husband.... I just wanted to post some of these.. the ones hitting on her Priorities - so very true...



> If you continue to try to be supermom, you'll lose. Suggesting your husband get a free pass was a bad idea, because you're trying to check him off the list without putting in the effort - in other words, as others have said, *you're showing him he's dead last on your list of priorities.* He's so low you would rather outsource his needs to someone else because you can't handle everything. And the trick is, the "you can't handle everything" is a completely reasonable statement, but "outsourcing his needs" is not.





> And yes, every marriage goes through different seasons in which the romantic feelings fluctuate and sometimes don't "match". But presumably you promised to love, honor and cherish this man for as long as you both shall live (or something along those lines). And it simply isn't fair to put your husband squarely at the bottom of your priority list and then essentially give yourself a "pass" by offering him one. How crude and disrespectful, and he was absolutely right to be crushed. "Go get some elsewhere, honey," is not an expression of love, no matter what kind of spin you try to put on it. You know what love is? It's a choice, not a feeling.
> 
> It's a *choice* to make the other person's needs and feelings a high priority. It's a *choice* to acknowledge and work on what's bothering *you* so that you can be a better wife to your husband - which ultimately is the very most important thing you can do for those tiny human beings on whom you have become so hyper-focused. What are you willing to give up or rearrange in your life so that you can feel more at peace for the sake of your marriage?





> All your excuses wallpaper over the cracks. You are only justifying your own actions with your own deceptions. Ask your husband if he agrees. He wont say "sure honey I'll just suck it up for another few years". As time ticks by the resentment and need builds up forever in him. One day, maybe years from now, maybe less, probably based on some arbitrary rejection or faint cruelty from you, he will decide to leave.
> 
> And this decision will be as firm and irrevocable as all his previous decisions to stay. It will shatter him and tear him apart because he values the family unit and loves his kids to bits. But at that moment, he will realise that his love for you is gone, exhausted, eroded away and worn out like the exhaustion that you complain about. Trust me I know.





> Let me give you some insight from a guy's perspective. A man's need for sex is not just about sex. It is the way we best receive and give intimacy. By giving a free pass, you are essentially telling your husband that you no longer want to be intimate with him. You think you gave him a gift, a way for him to get his rocks off, but instead you told him where he ranks in your world (kids, home, work, etc... everything else, then maybe, possibly him, if you happen to get a nap that day.... maybe....).
> 
> *That is about as disrespectful as a wife can be to a husband*. He promised before God to love and honor you forever, but you reneged on the same promise with your free pass. Until that moment, it may have not been apparent to him where he ranked any he wrongly thought he ranked highly in your mind still and his frustrations would eventually go away on their own, *but by offering the pass, you admitted to him where he ranked in your mind.... dead last*. I hope for your sake that you can find a way to repair the damage done to your relationship that others have pointed out, but you didn't just give him permission, you opened the door for him to leave and inferred to him that you didn't much care if he stayed any longer. No marriage can survive in that environment, despite your opinion that it will. He might hang around to keep you from financially ****** him, but he won't be your husband any longer, he'll just be your patron.


----------



## Wazza

jld said:


> Feel free to start a thread. I am concerned that further discussion would be a threadjack.
> 
> I have to say, though, that it is good Wazza brought up the idea that some men might be afraid of the stress of dealing with an unhappy woman, that it might harm their health. I never would have guessed that might be a fear some men have. Total shocker for me, and I have been reading TAM for over a year and a half now.


Just for the record, that isn't what I said.


----------



## Wazza

Duguesclin said:


> They can take the verbal abuse of a coach, but lose their cool when a woman raises her voice. I just do not get it.
> 
> Now, about JLD yelling. Yes it happens, but not that often. Yes I am responsible for her anger, but I do not seek it, nor do I have an adrenaline rush when it happens. It just happens, and it is not the end of the world.


Dug, I am genuinely happy for you and JLD. You have a balance that works for you guys, and I am glad.

But people have different values.

I know you guys have a view on gender roles, and obviously it works for you. That doesn't mean it will work for everybody. I picked up on the shouting is an example of that. You asked why a man struggles to put up with it. That was not my point. I just think its rude, and disrespectful.

But more disrespectful, in my view, is the notion of JLD that is it perfectly alright for her to tread someone like that, but if a man were to respond in kind, he is powerless, threatened, weak, and possibly dangerous. 

So let me ask you this. Accepting that JLD's shouting doesn't bug you much, do you think she would be a better person if she could communicate without shouting? Do you think this is an area where she could grow as a human being? In what circumstances is she a good listener?


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Wazza said:


> *So let me ask you this. Accepting that JLD's shouting doesn't bug you much, do you think she would be a better person if she could communicate without shouting? Do you think this is an area where she could grow as a human being? In what circumstances is she a good listener?*


My 2 cents here...You know what I think is funny.. if she was married to a man like my husband -she'd NEVER have to shout.. I believe this seriously.... he is a hell of a good listener and VERY intuned to my emotional needs.. to the point, I have NEVER in our relationship complained about him in THIS area, he is better than a darn girlfriend ! I am spoiled rotten.. though - JLD is not attracted to men like mine, she would find him weak and too submissive.. 

So at least she is very attracted and drawn to DUG's presence and "NO NEED OF HER" or anything ... (this is something that I can NOT wrap my brain around because this would only pi** a woman like me off).. ha ha ..

For this reason....I CAN NOT blame JLD for her loosing it with DUG.. due to *his lack *in THIS PARTICULAR AREA... which he fully admits by the way...*which allows him to have compassion on her* (I give him kudoos for that -even if others don't get it!)..

To me.. this is very similar to a Husband who is trying to deal with a wife who NEVER initiates, NEVER touches his penis.. is a prude basically...can't comprehend WHY her husband enjoys sex, needs sex, brushes him off.. and he's left trying to deal with her.. reminding her over & over & over that Sex , a little variety, some initiation is important to him .. and he looses it WITH HER every now & then after this builds and he has NO SATISFACTION, if he didn't let it out.. or deal with it somehow, he would get depressed ! 

Similar to this story even.. except at least DUG has some humility and can admit he is at fault.. 

So yeah...can some of you men relate to THIS scenario?? And how a man could Get ANGRY?? (I could !).... just like a woman (and yeah we're more emotional to begin with -generally speaking) - when SHE FEELS AT THE VERY BOTTOM OF HIS PRIORITY LIST....and when he does come home, she has to BEG for a little attention..

This is what I get from their dynamics.. the fact they both keep forgiving each other and put the family 1st is why it works for them.. but for MANY .. it would *NOT*.


----------



## jld

Wazza said:


> Just for the record, that isn't what I said.


Feel free to clarify. It is entirely possible that what I understood from your post is not what you intended for me to understand.


----------



## Wazza

SimplyAmorous said:


> My 2 cents here...You know what I think is funny.. if she was married to a man like my husband -she'd NEVER have to shout.. I believe this seriously.... he is a hell of a good listener and VERY intuned to my emotional needs.. to the point, I have NEVER in our relationship complained about him in THIS area, he is better than a darn girlfriend ! I am spoiled rotten.. though - JLD is not attracted to men like mine, she would find him weak and too submissive..
> 
> So at least she is very attracted and drawn to DUG's presence and "NO NEED OF HER" or anything ... (this is something that I can NOT wrap my brain around because this would only pi** a woman like me off).. ha ha ..
> 
> For this reason....I CAN NOT blame JLD for her loosing it with DUG.. due to *his lack *in THIS PARTICULAR AREA... which he fully admits by the way...*which allows him to have compassion on her* (I give him kudoos for that -even if others don't get it!)..
> 
> To me.. this is very similar to a Husband who is trying to deal with a wife who NEVER initiates, NEVER touches his penis.. is a prude basically...can't comprehend WHY her husband enjoys sex, needs sex, brushes him off.. and he's left trying to deal with her.. reminding her over & over & over that Sex , a little variety, some initiation is important to him .. and he looses it WITH HER every now & then after this builds and he has NO SATISFACTION, if he didn't let it out.. or deal with it somehow, he would get depressed !
> 
> Similar to this story even.. except at least DUG has some humility and can admit he is at fault..
> 
> So yeah...can some of you men relate to THIS scenario?? And how a man could Get ANGRY?? (I could !).... just like a woman (and yeah we're more emotional to begin with -generally speaking) - when SHE FEELS AT THE VERY BOTTOM OF HIS PRIORITY LIST....and when he does come home, she has to BEG for a little attention..
> 
> This is what I get from their dynamics.. the fact they both keep forgiving each other and put the family 1st is why it works for them.. but for MANY .. it would *NOT*.


I was sitting reediting my post when you quoted it, because I didn't intend it as an attack, but was worried it might be seen as one. But guess I missed that boat.

I don't think Dug's approach is a lack, and I am glad he and JLD found each other.

Each couple finds a balance that works for them, and it includes a degree of forgiveness on both sides. And by forgiving, and allowing, you are enabling the behaviour. I smiled at Dug's post. Why can't a man take it when a woman yells? Well, I can, but I don't want to. 

Tying that back to the blog, JLD and Dug have this dynamic, and it works for them, but does it work for everyone? That was why I zoomed in on JLD and Dug's marriage. To understand what informed her advice. 

I think it was earlier in this thread that I said JLD has only one tool. I think you need more than one. In my experience there is a time for trying to charm and win over, and also a time for drawing a line. The woman in the blog is making a decision on a false premise - that she can renege on her responsibilities and the marriage will survive. I think it would be wise to highlight that as a false assumption, and I think it would take more than words to do so.


----------



## Wazza

jld said:


> Feel free to clarify. It is entirely possible that what I understood from your post is not what you intended for me to understand.


I'm happy with what I've said. If it's important to you, quote what you based the statement on and I will try and clarify. But it doesn't much matter to me.


----------



## jld

Wazza, I think you want the woman to be the leader in the relationship. You want her to behave in a way that makes you, and the blogger's husband, feel comfortable and safe.

Dug thinks it is his and the blogger's husband's responsibility to be the leader in the relationship, not mine or the blogger's. When he behaves in a way that does not make me feel loved, he does not put the blame for that on me. He knows exactly who drives this relationship, and who, with just a little effort, almost instantaneously makes things all better.


----------



## Wazza

jld said:


> Wazza, I think you want the woman to be the leader in the relationship. You want her to behave in a way that makes you, and the blogger's husband, feel comfortable and safe.
> 
> Dug thinks it is his and the blogger's husband's responsibility to be the leader in the relationship, not mine or the blogger's. When he behaves in a way that does not make me feel loved, he does not put the blame for that on me. He knows exactly who drives this relationship, and who, with just a little effort, almost instantaneously makes things all better.


You could probably not be more wrong about how I see it.


----------



## EllisRedding

Wazza said:


> jld said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wazza, I think you want the woman to be the leader in the relationship. You want her to behave in a way that makes you, and the blogger's husband, feel comfortable and safe.
> 
> Dug thinks it is his and the blogger's husband's responsibility to be the leader in the relationship, not mine or the blogger's. When he behaves in a way that does not make me feel loved, he does not put the blame for that on me. He knows exactly who drives this relationship, and who, with just a little effort, almost instantaneously makes things all better.
> 
> 
> 
> You could probably not be more wrong about how I see it.
Click to expand...

Agreed with Wazza, never did I get the impression that is what he wanted  That comes across as implying that anyone who does not agree with the blogger author or how jld believes the h should handle is looking for a dominant/leader woman to make him safe ....


----------



## Duguesclin

Wazza said:


> So let me ask you this. Accepting that JLD's shouting doesn't bug you much, do you think she would be a better person if she could communicate without shouting? Do you think this is an area where she could grow as a human being? In what circumstances is she a good listener?


If one person corrected himself/herself based on the feedback he/she gets, after no time he/she would be a saint. I do not know about you, but I have yet to meet one.

JLD is not a saint and I am certainly not one. If I were perfect, I am sure she would be too.

JLD has made the ultimate sacrifice: quitting her job when our first child was born and staying home ever since. She has put herself in a very vulnerable place. A place that many men take advantage of with their wives, including me with mine.

If raising kids were that easy, I am sure there would be many more men doing it.

JLD yelling at me, like this blogger saying what she she said to her husband, are signs of other issues coming from me and her husband.

In any relationship, one is the leader. With JLD and me, the buck stops with me. If there is a behavior I do not like from JLD, I first have to ask myself whether or not I am causing it. In the blogger's case, if her husband wants her to lead, he should make it clear to her. If he needs to be protected from her words, they may not be compatible together.


----------



## Duguesclin

SimplyAmorous said:


> My 2 cents here...You know what I think is funny.. if she was married to a man like my husband -she'd NEVER have to shout.. I believe this seriously.... he is a hell of a good listener and VERY intuned to my emotional needs.. to the point, I have NEVER in our relationship complained about him in THIS area, he is better than a darn girlfriend ! I am spoiled rotten.. though - JLD is not attracted to men like mine, she would find him weak and too submissive..
> 
> So at least she is very attracted and drawn to DUG's presence and "NO NEED OF HER" or anything ... (this is something that I can NOT wrap my brain around because this would only pi** a woman like me off).. ha ha ..
> 
> For this reason....I CAN NOT blame JLD for her loosing it with DUG.. due to *his lack *in THIS PARTICULAR AREA... which he fully admits by the way...*which allows him to have compassion on her* (I give him kudoos for that -even if others don't get it!)..
> 
> To me.. this is very similar to a Husband who is trying to deal with a wife who NEVER initiates, NEVER touches his penis.. is a prude basically...can't comprehend WHY her husband enjoys sex, needs sex, brushes him off.. and he's left trying to deal with her.. reminding her over & over & over that Sex , a little variety, some initiation is important to him .. and he looses it WITH HER every now & then after this builds and he has NO SATISFACTION, if he didn't let it out.. or deal with it somehow, he would get depressed !
> 
> Similar to this story even.. except at least DUG has some humility and can admit he is at fault..
> 
> So yeah...can some of you men relate to THIS scenario?? And how a man could Get ANGRY?? (I could !).... just like a woman (and yeah we're more emotional to begin with -generally speaking) - when SHE FEELS AT THE VERY BOTTOM OF HIS PRIORITY LIST....and when he does come home, she has to BEG for a little attention..
> 
> This is what I get from their dynamics.. the fact they both keep forgiving each other and put the family 1st is why it works for them.. but for MANY .. it would *NOT*.


SA, thank you for your nice post. 

I know we disagree on how this blogger is interacting with her husband. I respect your opinion while strongly disagreeing. You protect men too much. Your husband truly is a fine man not to have taken advantage of you. Maybe he has caused your glasses to view life too pink about men.

Like Always-Alone has said, men are too quick to keep scores when it is to their advantage.

SA, according to you, she should not talk to her husband that way. So what should she say? Should she say "I am sorry honey but I do not want to have sex with you any more. I don't feel wanting it any more. I am so sorry. I know it means a lot to you, but I am sure you understand that I should not do it if I do not feel it. And please stop complaining about it. You respect women, don't you? Why would you force me to do something I do not want to do?"

I do not see the essential difference between what I just wrote and what she wrote in her blog. 

The issue is not how she expresses herself to her husband but the fact she does not want to have sex with him. I agree that it is not good, but it is her husband's issue, not hers. She actually tried to make it her issue and the only thing it did was build resentment in her.

Some people think of men as weak. Thinking of them that way is not going to help them. It is going to make them more entitled and more willing to keep score, just as we have seen in this thread.


----------



## Fozzy

Duguesclin said:


> If one person corrected himself/herself based on the feedback he/she gets, after no time he/she would be a saint. I do not know about you, but I have yet to meet one.
> 
> JLD is not a saint and I am certainly not one. If I were perfect, I am sure she would be too.
> 
> JLD has made the ultimate sacrifice: quitting her job when our first child was born and staying home ever since. She has put herself in a very vulnerable place. A place that many men take advantage of with their wives, including me with mine.
> 
> If raising kids were that easy, I am sure there would be many more men doing it.
> 
> JLD yelling at me, like this blogger saying what she she said to her husband, are signs of other issues coming from me and her husband.
> 
> In any relationship, one is the leader. With JLD and me, the buck stops with me. If there is a behavior I do not like from JLD, I first have to ask myself whether or not I am causing it. In the blogger's case, if her husband wants her to lead, he should make it clear to her. If he needs to be protected from her words, they may not be compatible together.


Dug, I agree you should always look at yourself first because that's where you have the most control. But do you ever look at yourself first and then determine that you are NOT the problem in a given situation?
_Posted via Mobile Device_
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## ocotillo

always_alone said:


> The scorecards are always out in full force when it comes to how many bjs she gives, how often she will put out and at what quality, but the minute the conversation turns to sacrifice, all of sudden those scorecards disappear.


Was there anything specifically the author wrote that gave you that impression?


----------



## EllisRedding

Duguesclin said:


> I respect your opinion while strongly disagreeing. You protect men too much. Your husband truly is a fine man not to have taken advantage of you. Maybe he has caused your glasses to view life too pink about men.


Seriously, could you have much more of a negative view of men to make a comment like this, along with other comments you have made ...

So because SA has a certain opinion about men that you don't agree with, it must be because her husband somehow blinded her to the truth. I don't see a lot of respect in her opinion by stating such


----------



## Blossom Leigh

My husband and I both ask ourselves first if we are causing issues in each other as evidenced by a reaction. If, yes we make amends and correct behavior, if no, we love through the hurdle without owning that issue for the other. It is just as much my responsibility to ask myself that question as it is my husbands and this blogger no longer cares to do so.


----------



## Duguesclin

Fozzy said:


> Dug, I agree you should always look at yourself first because that's where you have the most control. But do you ever look at yourself first and then determine that you are NOT the problem in a given situation?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Of course. I am not the problem in every situation. But if I am not the problem I can at least help and not become part of the problem.

In our blogger's issue, the only reason she said what she said is because he has been pressuring her for sex. It is like you are in the desert with your wife and you are pressuring her to give you water. Get her out of the desert and then water will not be a problem.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Duguesclin said:


> Of course. I am not the problem in every situation. But if I am not the problem I can at least help and not become part of the problem.
> 
> In our blogger's issue, the only reason she said what she said is because he has been pressuring her for sex. It is like you are in the desert with your wife and you are pressuring her to give you water. Get her out of the desert and then water will not be a problem.


I agree with you mostly except there is enough in that blog to point to other reasons being primary and not his pressure, thus she needs to self examine.

He can approach her in many ways, but at the end of the day, she is not immune from self examination nor accountability from her husband when sufficiently supportive, empathetic.

It looks like we agree that her fatigue is primary. He can empathize, but my gut is telling me he has offered solutions and she has refused the schdule changes and offers of hired help, thus has entered husband neglect.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Duguesclin said:


> *SA, thank you for your nice post.
> 
> I know we disagree on how this blogger is interacting with her husband. I respect your opinion while strongly disagreeing. You protect men too much. Your husband truly is a fine man not to have taken advantage of you. Maybe he has caused your glasses to view life too pink about men.*


I can't deny.. because of my experiences.. (many GOOD men in my life, from male relatives , to friends, to our sons).. the glasses probably are tinted a bit ..if a Man sounds well intentioned / loving father, faithful, sensitive ...I look upon him in high regard. 

Do I think most men are like this -- absolutely *Not*[email protected]#$... I would be the 1st woman on this forum to suggest / to warn NOT doing certain things to attract USER MEN/ basically narcissistic DOGS , to cut off A-holes...don't give them the time of day...I hardly throw my brain out when I read these stories...I try to be open minded.. 

I guess we all pick out & run with what moves us, what would HURT Us, what resonates with us .....

Just as you & jld appear to hold many similar views (due to your marriage having a outlier dynamic -NOT the common 50/50 divide but that the MAN is accountable more than his woman)...

it makes perfect sense we bulk heads here ..as we view it more from a 50/50 perspective ...for instance... My husband's feeling desired by me is hugely important (or he wouldn't even touch me!)..and it is for me too.. (I wouldn't live in rejection & misery though.. I'd just seek to leave him!)..... it would hurt our marriage gravely if one had an attitude about these things....as this wife does .....

You & JLD may think those things are not necessary (I guess?)...but who is to judge what is NECESSARY for someone else.. these are all just opinions..we're speaking out of our own passions, what brings us happiness, fulfillment.. . Heck the husband in the article is supposedly sticking by her side..LOVING HER THROUGH IT ... while masturbating alone for the next 5 yrs.. hey, it's his life.. his future... "Happy wife, happy life" in action ! 

You gotta know this has NOTHING ever to do with gender.. I would feel exactly the same if it was a woman.. .. There is always ONE question looming for me.. Are they good hearted people ...do they go the extra mile in trying to understand their partner.. I could care less what gender they are.. 



> *Like Always-Alone has said, men are too quick to keep scores when it is to their advantage.*


 I'm not one to point out generalizing too much -but really I want to point it out here.. I've never felt men do it more so.. haven't seen that.. each gender may do it more so on different things. (Men more on sex, women more on time, attention).. 

I don't see this husband even doing that ... you may be reading a little too much between the lines there.... 



> *SA, according to you, she should not talk to her husband that way. So what should she say? Should she say "I am sorry honey but I do not want to have sex with you any more. I don't feel wanting it any more. I am so sorry. I know it means a lot to you, but I am sure you understand that I should not do it if I do not feel it. And please stop complaining about it. You respect women, don't you? Why would you force me to do something I do not want to do?*"


 No.. she can mouth off in a heated moment any way she likes , none of us are perfect .. I am not one to jump on people over that -or I will have 2 fingers pointing back at myself.. 

I guess I am not grasping ...exactly what you & jld THINK THIS MAN SHOULD BE DOING to turn around her rotten attitude ??... other than biding his time, masturbates alone.. treating her like she is Oh so Wonderful... catering to her... like this is going to turn her [email protected]#$ .. Only those who can look at themselves & have a spirit of gratitude -this will work with.. others will just suck it up & take more advantage.. unfortunate but it's often human nature ..

Or that you feel he should step up.. take charge over her...what do you advocate...inspiring her respect by telling her "WOMAN... you are going to quit your job.. you are going to ________" that way YOU WILL have more time , less stress, this is good for you.. I will take care of you, you have too much on your plate"... 

You're the Dominant.. basically you told JLD shortly after you met.. "I want you to breast feed and home school all of our children, lets get married !".. she trusted you and jumped on board.. You protect her, you provide.. that's the deal.. 

It's very possible this woman is NOT a JLD...and would even more resentful if the man thought he was going to take this much charge telling her how it's going to BE... I don't see her as a submissive . 



> *The issue is not how she expresses herself to her husband but the fact she does not want to have sex with him. I agree that it is not good, but it is her husband's issue, not hers. She actually tried to make it her issue and the only thing it did was build resentment in her*.


 Glad you at least agree it's not good....I go further.. it's not acceptable..

I feel it is BOTH their issues.. that's what being a team is about.. What affects her SHOULD be a concern to him -so he can help her through it.. .what affects him SHOULD be a concern to her so she can do all she can also...and together they find a peaceable solution.. this is how WE feel in our marriage. those are our dynamics.. I see her putting up a wall to that..I feel he has been more accommodating.. and that's through her own words for goodness sakes! 



> *Some people think of men as weak. Thinking of them that way is not going to help them. It is going to make them more entitled and more willing to keep score, just as we have seen in this thread.*


 not sure what you mean by "as we have seen in this thread"..... who .... the posters ..that article ? I don't get it.. who is coming off entitled here or keeping score?



> *Blossom Leigh said*: He can approach her in many ways, but at the end of the day, she is not immune from self examination nor accountability from her husband when sufficiently supportive, empathetic.
> 
> It looks like we agree that her fatigue is primary. He can empathize, but my gut is telling me he has offered solutions and she has refused the schdule changes and offers of hired help, thus has entered husband neglect.


 All you said.. couldn't agree more so... it has "entered" husband neglect.


----------



## unblinded

Duguesclin said:


> Of course. I am not the problem in every situation. But if I am not the problem I can at least help and not become part of the problem.
> 
> In our blogger's issue, the only reason she said what she said is because he has been pressuring her for sex. *It is like you are in the desert with your wife and you are pressuring her to give you water. Get her out of the desert and then water will not be a problem.*


I think the blogger is asking to be left under a tree for a while, and the husband should come back when she's ready to move on.


----------



## EllisRedding

SimplyAmorous said:


> I'm not one to point out generalizing too much -but really I want to point it out here.. I've never felt men do it more so.. haven't seen that.. each gender may do it more so on different things. (Men more on sex, women more on time, attention)..
> 
> not sure what you mean by "as we have seen in this thread"..... who .... the posters ..that article ? I don't get it.. who is coming off entitled here or keeping score?


Thanks for pointing these out SA. Honestly I have no idea how this whole scorecard thing got generalized to all men do it ... First off, if someone is keeping a scorecard in a relationship, odds are there is a bigger problem, it is probably not a healthy relationship. Second, in this case, both men and women would do this, maybe for different reasons as you pointed out, but it would happen on both sides. Once again, just another thing that is not gender specific but some people try to make it so.


----------



## unblinded

Bugged said:


> :frown2:
> *Is it too much to ask?*I dunno..
> Situations like that are a freaking _aporia_..my decision was to move out..now I'm miserable..my partner is miserable (and furious too)...he wants me to come home and today when he got here where I live now, he looked like wolverine...long hair, long beard...bah...:crying:


In this case, I think so. If I was to place myself in the husband's situation, I would want to know why she's in this place (root cause) and how _we_ can work together to make things better.

Truth be told, my (stbx)wife made a similar comment to me after our second child was born. I was always eager to go when I saw her (that never changed over the course of our marriage), but her drive plummeted in the years after our second came into the world. One day she told me in anger that I should find some other woman who could keep up with my drive. I simply walked out of the room. She never verbally apologized, but she tried to make up for it in her actions (e.g., increased initiation, more adventurous locales).

After having our third child, she was pretty much ready to go at the drop of a hat...it didn't matter when, where, or who might hear us (which almost got us into trouble a few times). I will say that, in the last 6-7 years, our sex life has been amazing. Once, while driving back from a date night, I jokingly said "let's pull over and do it right here in this parking lot." She smiled, replied "let's do it!", and immediately started undressing. I chickened out...she was _not_ happy. 

But I digress. I think the blogger and her husband need to attack/improve the situation, or call it quits. Hopefully they go with the former.


----------



## Wazza

Duguesclin said:


> If one person corrected himself/herself based on the feedback he/she gets, after no time he/she would be a saint. I do not know about you, but I have yet to meet one.
> 
> JLD is not a saint and I am certainly not one. If I were perfect, I am sure she would be too.
> 
> JLD has made the ultimate sacrifice: quitting her job when our first child was born and staying home ever since. She has put herself in a very vulnerable place. A place that many men take advantage of with their wives, including me with mine.
> 
> If raising kids were that easy, I am sure there would be many more men doing it.
> 
> JLD yelling at me, like this blogger saying what she she said to her husband, are signs of other issues coming from me and her husband.
> 
> In any relationship, one is the leader. With JLD and me, the buck stops with me. If there is a behavior I do not like from JLD, I first have to ask myself whether or not I am causing it. In the blogger's case, if her husband wants her to lead, he should make it clear to her. If he needs to be protected from her words, they may not be compatible together.


I think for most couples there will be fault, or correction needed, on both sides. The notion of correction comes into the discussion because it relates to the question, is it clearly up to the husband to take action or should it be joint?

You guys have a notion of leadership which just doesn't resonate with me, and I think is out of touch with modern society. For example I did participate in raising my kids. I think most husbands with working wives do. You talk about protecting the husband from her words, but there is more at stake here. The issue I see is the woman's unilateral decision on the form of the marriage. The words are a symptom.


----------



## ocotillo

EllisRedding said:


> Honestly I have no idea how this whole scorecard thing got generalized to all men do it ... First off, if someone is keeping a scorecard in a relationship, odds are there is a bigger problem, it is probably not a healthy relationship.


All relationships have at least an informal system of accounting and there's nothing wrong with that. If, for example, you had a friend who consistently refused to pay his share of the tab at restaurants and bars, odds are you would eventually get tired of taking up the slack and quit inviting him. 

In the book, _His Needs, Her Needs_, the author argues for a similar idea in romantic relationships, via the concept of a "Love Bank." If you were married to a partner who wanted to be treated with the affection and tenderness of lovers and yet not be lovers; who expected big and expensive gifts on anniversaries yet couldn't be troubled to get a card for you, odds are you'd get tired of that too.


----------



## Wazza

Duguesclin said:


> It is like you are in the desert with your wife and you are pressuring her to give you water. Get her out of the desert and then water will not be a problem.


How?

Have you and JLD ever dealt with a serious mismatch of drive from your perspective? If so, maybe more detail of how you did it would help in understanding your point.

( it's a nice form of words by the way. Very succinct capture of the issue.)


----------



## Buddy400

aa,

While almost always disagreeing with you in the past, I've always found your comments to be quite rational. It seems like you've gone off the rails here and, from a previous post, it seems like recent difficulties in your own situation might be skewing your view of this.



always_alone said:


> Because all she has done is write a blog post describing her feelings and she is being trashed as all that could possibly be wrong with a woman.


As someone, I believe it was far, said no one here has criticized her having these feelings.



always_alone said:


> Because she is being asked to do something that makes her feel empty, cold, and used, which is something I can identify with, and quite perfectly understand why she might find this a huge turn off and hurdle.


She describes her husband as great in bed (when they have it). She doesn't say that she'd like sex but that his behavior turns her off. She doesn't blame him for her lack of libido.



always_alone said:


> And, TBH, because I do feel less sympathy for his side.


But even the author seems to feel bad for her husband (she just doesn't seem to think she needs to do anything about it). By her description, he seems to be a fine, loving husband and father. I don't think she criticizes him in any way except for the fact that he has expressed a desire to have sex with her from time to time.


----------



## always_alone

ocotillo said:


> Was there anything specifically the author wrote that gave you that impression?


It was not the author that gave me that impression, it was the tone on this thread that was basically berating jld to admit that because she sometimes loses her sh1t that she must be a spoiled child stomping her foot until she gets her way. And while I don't even know jld that well, no better than anyone else on TAM, I think it's pretty obvious that she is *not* that kind of person. She is a giver, one who puts herself out there for others, one who perhaps listens better than anyone else on this thread. 

So sure, she loses it sometimes, and yells. Who doesn't? Can you honestly tell me that you've never lost your temper with your wife or children? I know I can't.

Now maybe the blogger is that sort of person, maybe she is the narcissist that you see her to be. I will admit that I haven't read anything beyond the one article posted here. But in that article, she paints a picture of her needs and her feelings, and it strikes me as somewhat unfair to conclude that just because she has those needs, just because she dares give voice to them, that she is somehow entitled, selfish, evil. Yes, her husband has needs too, but because hers are currently competing, she is automatically at fault?? She is the one who has to find a way to not feel as she does, to not have the needs she does? His sacrifice is a travesty of justice, but hers is just her duty as a woman and a wife?

The reality is that there is no bigger turn-off in the world than being pressured into sex. This is not at all gender specific:. My SO is as turned off by my pressuring for sex as the blogger is --and this is something that I would take responsibility for. Why does the blogger's h get a total free pass? Because his feelings were hurt? But what about her hurt feelings?

Now in all fairness,he does have needs that aren't being met and he has every right to refuse that situation. If he doesn't like it, won't put up with it, won't consider his role or changing his tactics, then he should absolutely do them both a favour and leave her. But whether he chooses to accept some responsibility or to just walk away, IMHO her struggles and her needs are just as real, and just as deserving of consideration as his are.


----------



## Icey181

always_alone said:


> It was not the author that gave me that impression, it was the tone on this thread that was basically berating jld to admit that because she sometimes loses her sh1t that she must be a spoiled child stomping her foot until she gets her way. And while I don't even know jld that well, no better than anyone else on TAM, I think it's pretty obvious that she is *not* that kind of person. She is a giver, one who puts herself out there for others, one who perhaps listens better than anyone else on this thread.
> 
> So sure, she loses it sometimes, and yells. Who doesn't? Can you honestly tell me that you've never lost your temper with your wife or children? I know I can't.
> 
> Now maybe the blogger is that sort of person, maybe she is the narcissist that you see her to be. I will admit that I haven't read anything beyond the one article posted here. But in that article, she paints a picture of her needs and her feelings, and it strikes me as somewhat unfair to conclude that just because she has those needs, just because she dares give voice to them, that she is somehow entitled, selfish, evil. Yes, her husband has needs too, but because hers are currently competing, she is automatically at fault?? She is the one who has to find a way to not feel as she does, to not have the needs she does? His sacrifice is a travesty of justice, but hers is just her duty as a woman and a wife?
> 
> The reality is that there is no bigger turn-off in the world than being pressured into sex. This is not at all gender specific:. My SO is as turned off by my pressuring for sex as the blogger is --and this is something that I would take responsibility for. Why does the blogger's h get a total free pass? Because his feelings were hurt? But what about her hurt feelings?
> 
> Now in all fairness,he does have needs that aren't being met and he has every right to refuse that situation. If he doesn't like it, won't put up with it, won't consider his role or changing his tactics, then he should absolutely do them both a favour and leave her. But whether he chooses to accept some responsibility or to just walk away, IMHO her struggles and her needs are just as real, and just as deserving of consideration as his are.


You must be kidding me AA…

This woman is _not_ a giver.

She is clearly a narcissist and she clearly sought to emotionally devastate her husband with the "Free Pass," in such a manner to cow him into inaction.

This women is terrible, deserves to be divorced immediately, and I cannot fathom anyone defending her for any reason.

*She told her husband to go f*** another women because she does not feel like it.*

Not to mention she demands he provide all the duties of a husband and be available when _she_ is ready to go.

This post disgusted me when it first hit the net and it disgusts me today.

I read this and immediately hoped the husband would divorce her messily and use this "Free Pass" as grounds to strip as much from her as possible in the process.


----------



## Icey181

Also, I want to point this out.

This woman described her husband as a good man, a doting and loving father, and a supportive husband.

There is not a man on this planet who fits those descriptions that would accept a "Free Pass."

And she knew it.

The "Free Pass" was nothing more than emotional blackmail by which she told her husband that her refusal to have sex with him is absolute and he either excepts it or destroys the marriage outright.

This woman is a narcissistic manipulator who is using the bonds of matrimony and fatherhood to force this man into submission and this blog was her gloating in public about it working.

This is not an ignorant woman with legitimate problems that need to be addressed in a happy and safe place.

This is a horrible person who knows what she is doing and grandstanding about it.


----------



## EllisRedding

ocotillo said:


> All relationships have at least an informal system of accounting and there's nothing wrong with that. If, for example, you had a friend who consistently refused to pay his share of the tab at restaurants and bars, odds are you would eventually get tired of taking up the slack and quit inviting him.
> 
> In the book, _His Needs, Her Needs_, the author argues for a similar idea in romantic relationships, via the concept of a "Love Bank." If you were married to a partner who wanted to be treated with the affection and tenderness of lovers and yet not be lovers; who expected big and expensive gifts on anniversaries yet couldn't be troubled to get a card for you, odds are you'd get tired of that too.


I meant it more in the context of which it has been brought up by several posters here. You know, all those evil men who keep scorecards about how many times they get bjs, etc... as if the scorecard concept was gender specific.

In general, I find when things got a little bumpy with my wife and I we both probably started keeping a list of "This is what I have done ...". When things are going well I don't consider things I do that way nor does my wife. It helps as well we are on the same page with things. For example, for special occasions (birthdays, mothers/fathers day, etc...) we don't do gifts anymore and rarely do cards. Just for us it is something that is not needed as we rather do little things for each other throughout the year. Now obviously if I didn't want to do gifts and my wife was expecting, then I would end up in a world of hurt lol.


----------



## ocotillo

AA,



always_alone said:


> So sure, she loses it sometimes, and yells. Who doesn't? Can you honestly tell me that you've never lost your temper with your wife or children? I know I can't.


I can't honestly say that either. My wife and I are both afflicted with the "madder I get, the quieter I get" gene though. Sometimes I think it would actually be healthier to let it out and get it over with more quickly. 




always_alone said:


> Now maybe the blogger is that sort of person, maybe she is the narcissist that you see her to be. I will admit that I haven't read anything beyond the one article posted here.


I honestly can't tell. My initial impression of her personal blog, (Missguided Mama, not Scary Mommy) was very negative, but it's hard to know how much of that is acting and how much is real. 





always_alone said:


> The reality is that there is no bigger turn-off in the world than being pressured into sex. This is not at all gender specific:. My SO is as turned off by my pressuring for sex as the blogger is --and this is something that I would take responsibility for. Why does the blogger's h get a total free pass? Because his feelings were hurt? But what about her hurt feelings?


The single most negative thing the author said about her husband is that he drops hints equating sex with love. I suppose you could view that as a form of pressure, but the author did not at any point use that word to describe her husband. People on this thread stating that her husband, is needy, whiny, pressuring her, etc. are far, far beyond what she actually said.





always_alone said:


> Now in all fairness,he does have needs that aren't being met and he has every right to refuse that situation. If he doesn't like it, won't put up with it, won't consider his role or changing his tactics, then he should absolutely do them both a favour and leave her. But whether he chooses to accept some responsibility or to just walk away, IMHO her struggles and her needs are just as real, and just as deserving of consideration as his are.


In many ways, that's how I view the situation. It is not uncommon for women to temporarily lose their sex drive after childbirth. If affects anywhere from 1/3 to 1/2 of all mothers depending upon what you read. It's not their fault; it's not their husbands fault; it's not anybody's fault. I don't think her husband is going to get anywhere by constructing syllogisms. He needs to gently help her find those feelings again.


----------



## Fozzy

Buddy400 said:


> But even the author seems to feel bad for her husband (*she just doesn't seem to think she needs to do anything about it*). By her description, he seems to be a fine, loving husband and father. I don't think she criticizes him in any way except for the fact that he has expressed a desire to have sex with her from time to time.


I'll give the blogger credit here. She did go through some of the standard motions--going to doctors etc. Although she does dismiss marital counseling as "cliche"--not a helpful attitude.

One could argue that offering him a hall pass is "doing something about it" from a certain perspective. Where the entire thing burns to the ground is that she's offering him a hall pass without recognizing that sex is an emotional experience for him. It clearly isn't for her. Ok, some people don't get emotional about sex--fine. But the fact that she's so dismissive about his emotional connections vis a vis sex while telling him to just go fck someone else is a huge problem imo.

Maybe she should spend a little more time examining some of those MC cliches rather than snarking about them.


----------



## always_alone

Buddy400 said:


> aa,
> 
> She describes her husband as great in bed (when they have it). She doesn't say that she'd like sex but that his behavior turns her off. She doesn't blame him for her lack of libido.


What she said is that she feels like she is under immense pressure to perform sexually. And that she tried, really tried to just go ahead and do it anyway, even when she didn't want to -- for him -- but that doing this made her hate sex.

And I'm sorry, but her h says: "if you *really* loved me, you'd *want* sex with me." That sounds about as manipulative and pressuring as it gets, IMHO.


----------



## always_alone

ocotillo said:


> The single most negative thing the author said about her husband is that he drops hints equating sex with love. I suppose you could view that as a form of pressure, but the author did not at any point use that word to describe her husband. People on this thread stating that her husband, is needy, whiny, pressuring her, etc. are far, far beyond what she actually said.


Practically the whole piece is about how much pressure she feels to be more sexual. Now maybe this pressure is self-inflicted, but personally, as I just said to Buddy, if my SO told me that I obviously don't love him enough because I don't feel the way I should, I would take that as pretty severe pressure.

And, indeed, I know for a fact that he feels the same way. Any hint from me that he doesn't love me because he doesn't want sex with me is not received well at all. 

Sex just doesn't go well with pressure.


----------



## Fozzy

always_alone said:


> Practically the whole piece is about how much pressure she feels to be more sexual. Now maybe this pressure is self-inflicted, but personally, as I just said to Buddy, if my SO told me that I obviously don't love him enough because I don't feel the way I should, I would take that as pretty severe pressure.
> 
> And, indeed, I know for a fact that he feels the same way. Any hint from me that he doesn't love me because he doesn't want sex with me is not received well at all.
> 
> Sex just doesn't go well with pressure.


He didn't say she didn't love him because she didn't want to have sex. The husband said "you don't love me" as a response to her telling him to go fck someone else.

I'd feel the same in a moment like that.


----------



## always_alone

Fozzy said:


> One could argue that offering him a hall pass is "doing something about it" from a certain perspective. Where the entire thing burns to the ground is that she's offering him a hall pass without recognizing that sex is an emotional experience for him. It clearly isn't for her. Ok, some people don't get emotional about sex--fine. But the fact that she's so dismissive about his emotional connections vis a vis sex while telling him to just go fck someone else is a huge problem imo.


I think she honestly did think of it as doing something. She said she'd been churning over it in her mind as a solution, so that his sexual needs would be met, as she knew she wasn't doing a good enough job.

And I'm sorry, but after years and years of being told that guys just want sex, that prostitutes, strippers, porn all mean nothing at all, 'cuz its "just sex", that men are big fans of ONS, that a guy who isn't getting it from his wife should be outsourcing his needs, and is justified in doing so, after seeing married men sitting around sharing pics and talking about "hitting that", after listening to them wax eloquent about their temptations from other women, it is really, really, really hard to believe that all of sudden, somehow the emotional part of sex actually means something.

Certainly my SO really likes the idea of a hall pass, and there are a number of women he'd be fine with getting with. The only reason he doesn't go there is because he knows I'd ditch him the second I found out.

TBH, I find it quite surprising to see so much offense taken at the mere suggestion.


----------



## farsidejunky

A_A, for someone who spends a lot of time fighting stereotypes towards women, you really cite a tremendous amount of stereotypes towards men to support your positions.

Post 631 is loaded with them.

How about we just stop pigeon holing genders into one size fits all. It HURT me to hear it from my wife. And no amount of stripper/hall pass sex would have fixed that.


----------



## Fozzy

always_alone said:


> I think she honestly did think of it as doing something. She said she'd been churning over it in her mind as a solution, so that his sexual needs would be met, as she knew she wasn't doing a good enough job.
> 
> And I'm sorry, but after years and years of being told that guys just want sex, that prostitutes, strippers, porn all mean nothing at all, 'cuz its "just sex", that men are big fans of ONS, that a guy who isn't getting it from his wife should be outsourcing his needs, and is justified in doing so, after seeing married men sitting around sharing pics and talking about "hitting that", after listening to them wax eloquent about their temptations from other women, it is really, really, really hard to believe that all of sudden, somehow the emotional part of sex actually means something.
> 
> Certainly my SO really likes the idea of a hall pass, and there are a number of women he'd be fine with getting with. The only reason he doesn't go there is because he knows I'd ditch him the second I found out.
> 
> TBH, I find it quite surprising to see so much offense taken at the mere suggestion.



AA, we've had this discussion before. Some guys are like that. Some guys are not like that. 

I had this discussion with a friend of mine the other day also. A guy he knows frequents massage parlors and was telling my friend that it's just a stress reliever and means nothing. My friend asked me what I thought of that. I said "does his wife know about it?" The answer of course was no. To which I replied "If you have to hide it or justify it, you're already wrong".

It's clear to me from how the blogger describes her husband's reaction that he's not one of those guys. If he was, he'd simply have taken the hall pass and ran with it. Instead, he was hurt at the suggestion.

Penises don't make us unfeeling robots.


----------



## always_alone

Fozzy said:


> He didn't say she didn't love him because she didn't want to have sex. The husband said "you don't love me" as a response to her telling him to go fck someone else.



What she says is this:



> But my husband does drop hints when he's horny (which is constant), that if I _really_ loved him, I'd want to have sex with him.


And you don't think that's pressure? 

If you *really* loved me, you wouldn't argue!


----------



## farsidejunky

always_alone said:


> What she says is this:
> 
> 
> 
> And you don't think that's pressure?
> 
> If you *really* loved me, you wouldn't argue!


It is pressure. I will acknowledge that.

And this may be projecting, but when everything else has been tried and failed, tactics sometimes become desperate.

He likely has no idea what else to do.


----------



## Fozzy

I never said she didn't feel pressure. It's clear that she does. What I'm saying is that she handled it poorly because she doesn't understand that it's an emotional connection for him, and pooh-pooh's the idea of working it out in counseling.


----------



## always_alone

Fozzy said:


> Penises don't make us unfeeling robots.


No, of course not. I wasn't ever meaning to suggest that. Just that when you've been told all your life that men's sexual needs are paramount, and you know for a fact that these needs can be filled in multiple ways, it's not *that* crazy farfetched to think "hmmm, I suck at filling his needs, but maybe someone else can". And broaching that thought isn't necessarily the selfish, entitled, manipulative, cruel thing it's made out to be here.

I mean, suppose you found yourself, for some reason, unable to meet your wife's sexual needs. What would you expect her to do? What would you offer her?


----------



## always_alone

farsidejunky said:


> It is pressure. I will acknowledge that.
> 
> And this may be projecting, but when everything else has been tried and failed, tactics sometimes become desperate.
> 
> He likely has no idea what else to do.


Yes, and if we can also give her some of that consideration, instead of demonizing her, then we're probably starting to get a more representative picture of what's really going on.


----------



## farsidejunky

Offer her the opportunity to end the relationship; no hall pass. Fidelity is too important to me.


----------



## farsidejunky

always_alone said:


> Yes, and if we can also give her some of that consideration, instead of demonizing her, then we're probably starting to get a more representative picture of what's really going on.


Saying her priorities are terrible is not demonizing. It is saying her priorities are terrible.


----------



## Fozzy

always_alone said:


> No, of course not. I wasn't ever meaning to suggest that. Just that when you've been told all your life that men's sexual needs are paramount, and you know for a fact that these needs can be filled in multiple ways, it's not *that* crazy farfetched to think "hmmm, I suck at filling his needs, but maybe someone else can". And broaching that thought isn't necessarily the selfish, entitled, manipulative, cruel thing it's made out to be here.
> 
> I mean, suppose you found yourself, for some reason, unable to meet your wife's sexual needs. What would you expect her to do? What would you offer her?


I was unable to meet my wife's sexual needs for years. A large part of that being due to her not letting me do anything to try. I offered pretty much anything and everything. The ONLY thing I've ever told her that is completely off the table is third parties. That's still pretty much my only hard limit.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

always_alone said:


> What she said is that she feels like she is under immense pressure to perform sexually. And that she tried, really tried to just go ahead and do it anyway, even when she didn't want to -- for him -- but that doing this made her hate sex.
> 
> *And I'm sorry, but her h says: "if you *really* loved me, you'd *want* sex with me." That sounds about as manipulative and pressuring as it gets, IMHO*.


I do not find his speaking how he feels in this the least bit manipulative.. I also feel if my husbands loves me , he'd want to be intimate with me.. Hell yeah!!! .. I don't get you at all Always alone... you even feel this way yourself.. it hurts you/ many women over , I've read their stories, painful.. when their husbands would choose porn over them.. they would give anything for their men to WANT TO HAVE SEX with them.. would it make a difference if he said "He wanted to make love to his wife".. My Husband would say that.. not "sex".. but ya know.. they are interchangeable . 

Because of women being so sensitive to what a man says.. (But oh we should be able to say ANYTHING!!)....he's screwed no matter what he does... this is why men clam up around us.. we put them in the dog house & grow resentment over something another woman would be so thankful and grateful for....some just can not win....damned if they do , damned if they don't.


----------



## always_alone

farsidejunky said:


> A_A, for someone who spends a lot of time fighting stereotypes towards women, you really cite a tremendous amount of stereotypes towards men to support your positions.
> 
> Post 631 is loaded with them.
> 
> How about we just stop pigeon holing genders into one size fits all. It HURT me to hear it from my wife. And no amount of stripper/hall pass sex would have fixed that.


I am just as happy to rip apart stereotypes of men, and have done so reasonably regularly. And I'm sorry if you found that post offensive. I wasn't trying to discount your experience, merely to articulate my own. It honestly never would have occurred to me that I was being offensive if I offered my SO a hall pass. I would've thought it a favour, certainly more of a sacrifice for me than for him.

And I'm not really sure how I'd react if he offered me one. I'm inclined to think I'd see it as a selfless gesture on his part, but maybe I'm fooling myself. I can say though that him cheating on me is much more of an instant dealbreaker than him offering me the opportunity to cheat.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Fozzy said:


> AA, we've had this discussion before. *Some guys are like that. Some guys are not like that. *
> 
> I had this discussion with a friend of mine the other day also. A guy he knows frequents massage parlors and was telling my friend that it's just a stress reliever and means nothing. My friend asked me what I thought of that. I said "does his wife know about it?" The answer of course was no. To which I replied "If you have to hide it or justify it, you're already wrong".
> 
> *It's clear to me from how the blogger describes her husband's reaction that he's not one of those guys. If he was, he'd simply have taken the hall pass and ran with it. Instead, he was hurt at the suggestion.
> 
> Penises don't make us unfeeling robots*.


How I see the article also... and very strongly... . *this is a GOOD MAN*, not an unfeeling narcissistic Playboy who is looking for a warm hole to stick it into.... how anyone can get this -FROM THIS ARTICLE is beyond me.. its so obvious in your face , with her own words.. how he responded and WON'T TAKE the pass.. he's a GOOD MAN , da** it !


----------



## Fozzy

always_alone said:


> I am just as happy to rip apart stereotypes of men, and have done so reasonable regularly. And I'm sorry if you found that post offensive. I wasn't trying to discount your experience, merely to articulate my own. It honestly never would have occurred to me that I was being offensive if I offered my SO a hall pass. I would've thought it a favour, certainly more of a sacrifice for me than for him.
> 
> And I'm not really sure how I'd react if he offered me one. I'm inclined to think I'd see it as a selfless gesture on his part, but maybe I'm fooling myself. I can say though that him cheating on me is much more of an instant dealbreaker than him offering me the opportunity to cheat.


Understanding you're not sure of your initial reaction to the offer, if you found yourself in this husband's position and your SO offered you a hall pass, do you think you'd be capable of taking it?


----------



## always_alone

farsidejunky said:


> Saying her priorities are terrible is not demonizing. It is saying her priorities are terrible.


A lot of much harsher things were said about her than all of that...


----------



## Fozzy

always_alone said:


> A lot of much harsher things were said about her than all of that...


Yes they were. Opinions will differ. Ranging from "what a ho-bag" to "what's the big deal?" Each side of the spectrum will view the other side as the demonizers--it's the way of the interwebs.

I don't necessarily think she's a ho-bag. I do think she's shockingly and perhaps willfully ignorant of her husband's emotional state.


----------



## Icey181

always_alone said:


> I am just as happy to rip apart stereotypes of men, and have done so reasonably regularly. And I'm sorry if you found that post offensive. I wasn't trying to discount your experience, merely to articulate my own. It honestly never would have occurred to me that I was being offensive if I offered my SO a hall pass. I would've thought it a favour, certainly more of a sacrifice for me than for him.


Are you kidding me?

That is literally telling a man that his sexual desire is nothing more than physical lust and that he just needs to get off.





always_alone said:


> And I'm not really sure how I'd react if he offered me one. I'm inclined to think I'd see it as a selfless gesture on his part, but maybe I'm fooling myself. I can say though that him cheating on me is much more of an instant dealbreaker than him offering me the opportunity to cheat.


Self-less?

How is declaring an unwillingness to look at your intimacy problems to the point of offering to jettison monogamy in a marriage to avoid dealing with the problem a selfless act?

You are doing everything possible to defend this woman and I do not understand why.


----------



## jld

Fozzy said:


> Yes they were. Opinions will differ. Ranging from "what a ho-bag" to "what's the big deal?" Each side of the spectrum will view the other side as the demonizers--it's the way of the interwebs.
> 
> I don't necessarily think she's a ho-bag. *I do think she's shockingly and perhaps willfully ignorant of her husband's emotional state*.


After ocotillo posted that her blog is called "Missguided Mama," I looked it up and read some more. It seems she is 30 years old with a 4 and 5 year old, and a husband who travels for work for weeks and months at a time. With his travel schedule, it sounds like she is basically a single parent.

I think the bolded likely applies to his understanding of her emotional state as well.


----------



## Cosmos

I think it's possible that some women can no more help their loss of libido when they have small children, than some men can help developing ED. The reasons / mechanics may be quite different, but the main difference in handling the problem is the attitude towards it. Men, obviously, cannot be pressured into "doing it anyway" and their sexual dysfunction is met with more understanding and support. On the other hand, women are pressured (even villainized) as it is seen as _wilfully _"withholding," and it's quite possible that this exacerbates the problem by causing 'performance anxiety,' anger and resentment...

It would appear that this woman has attempted to resolve the issue ("doing it anyway" and having her hormones checked), but has drawn a blank. She feels as confused and frustrated by her lack of desire, it would seem, as her H is about the lack of sex, and it's my guess that she offered him his free pass (albeit unwisely) out of total desperation.

Although I've never suffered from loss of libido, I have lived in a sexless marriage and I can see it from both sides of the coin and empathize with both.


----------



## azteca1986

Duguesclin said:


> The fact is, when you try to make men accountable, *they will band together* and find all kinds of excuses not to take responsibility.
> 
> They can take the verbal abuse of a coach, but lose their cool when a woman raises her voice. I just do not get it.
> 
> Now, about JLD yelling. Yes it happens, but not that often. Yes I am responsible for her anger, but I do not seek it, nor do I have an adrenaline rush when it happens. It just happens, and it is not the end of the world.


Funny. If I didn't know better I would say this was written by a woman.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

This chick has overloaded her plate to the degree that she can't handle the physical, emotional demands that sex naturally creates. She also is fully aware of resources at her fingertips that her husband supports to assist her load, yet she doesn't employ them. If my spouse told me to go f*** someone else and didn't care if sex returned within five years because of a heavy load, yet wasnt accepting the available help with the load, his actions would tell me he no longer loves me or cares for my emotional well being. Martyr complex is all consuming and by default makes that person emotionally unavailable until such time they see the light and come out of that nonsense. Her drama is what is important to her.

If ScaryMommy is too overloaded to tend to her husband, accept the help he has offered to lighten the load, sitting there b!tching about it accomplishes nothing but drama and seeking attention for woes you refuse to fix with resources at your fingertips.

Oh! And for this husband being gone a lot, pokes a huge hole in her claim of his constant requests for sex. Sounds like he longs for his wifes heart and body after being away from home alone working his a$$ off. He can't be constantly pestering when he is not even home everyday.


----------



## always_alone

Fozzy said:


> I was unable to meet my wife's sexual needs for years. A large part of that being due to her not letting me do anything to try. I offered pretty much anything and everything. The ONLY thing I've ever told her that is completely off the table is third parties. That's still pretty much my only hard limit.


That's very different, though. That's you trying to meet her needs with everything you are ready, willing, able to do. What if you had some sort of ED? Or received blinding headaches every time you had an erection? (Both things happen to men quite frequently) What if she needed you to do something that you hated?

You would just slap a happy grin on your face and pretend all was a-okay?


----------



## always_alone

SimplyAmorous said:


> I do not find his speaking how he feels in this the least bit manipulative.. I also feel if my husbands loves me , he'd want to be intimate with me.. Hell yeah!!! .. I don't get you at all Always alone... you even feel this way yourself.. it hurts you/ many women over , I've read their stories, painful.. when their husbands would choose porn over them.. they would give anything for their men to WANT TO HAVE SEX with them.. would it make a difference if he said "He wanted to make love to his wife".. My Husband would say that.. not "sex".. but ya know.. they are interchangeable .


It's not the words, SA, it's the approach. Yes, I know exactly what it feels like to think "if he really loved me, he'd want to have sex with me", and it's precisely because of that I know exactly just how turned off and manipulated he feels when I use it on him. I might as well be standing behind him tapping my foot and scolding him about when he's going to get it together to attend my needs, already.

All it does is drive him further away.

If your spouse is feeling too pressured and stressed, the last thing they are going to respond to when it comes to sex is more pressure and more stress.


----------



## EllisRedding

always_alone said:


> That's very different, though. That's you trying to meet her needs with everything you are ready, willing, able to do. What if you had some sort of ED? Or received blinding headaches every time you had an erection?* (Both things happen to men quite frequently)* What if she needed you to do something that you hated?
> 
> You would just slap a happy grin on your face and pretend all was a-okay?


ED and/or blinding headaches happen to men quite frequently, or was that just a sarcastic comment?


----------



## always_alone

Fozzy said:


> Understanding you're not sure of your initial reaction to the offer, if you found yourself in this husband's position and your SO offered you a hall pass, do you think you'd be capable of taking it?


Probably not. If he was just not that into me, I'd prefer to end the relationship. If it were a temporary situation, I'd just look for ways to deal without going outside the relationship.

But that said, if it were a long-term or chronic problem, then maybe I would start seeing it as a tempting solution. Although, fair being fair, since I wouldn't be able to stand him stepping out on me, I wouldn't expect him to stand it either. Even though he's told me flat out that he doesn't think cheating is that big a deal.


----------



## always_alone

EllisRedding said:


> ED and/or blinding headaches happen to men quite frequently, or was that just a sarcastic comment?


??? Yes, they happen to men frequently. That's what I said. Why would you think it sarcasm?


----------



## farsidejunky

always_alone said:


> Probably not. If he was just not that into me, I'd prefer to end the relationship. If it were a temporary situation, I'd just look for ways to deal without going outside the relationship.
> 
> But that said, if it were a long-term or chronic problem, then maybe I would start seeing it as a tempting solution. Although, fair being fair, since I wouldn't be able to stand him stepping out on me, I wouldn't expect him to stand it either. Even though he's told me flat out that he doesn't think cheating is that big a deal.


Not to thread jack, A_A, but the more I read about your SO the more I am stunned that he is still your SO. 

He is one of the last people I would use as a control group/example with this subject.


----------



## EllisRedding

always_alone said:


> ??? Yes, they happen to men frequently. That's what I said. Why would you think it sarcasm?


Seems like quite a generalization that ED happens to men frequently??? How did you arrive at that assumption??? And who is having blinding headaches?


----------



## jld

Blossom Leigh said:


> This chick has overloaded her plate to the degree that she can't handle the physical, emotional demands that sex naturally creates. She also is fully aware of resources at her fingertips that her husband supports to assist her load, yet she doesn't employ them. If my spouse told me to go f*** someone else and didn't care if sex returned within five years because of a heavy load, yet wasnt accepting the available help with the load, his actions would tell me he no longer loves me or cares for my emotional well being. Martyr complex is all consuming and by default makes that person emotionally unavailable until such time they see the light and come out of that nonsense. Her drama is what is important to her.
> 
> If ScaryMommy is too overloaded to tend to her husband, accept the help he has offered to lighten the load, sitting there b!tching about it accomplishes nothing but drama and seeking attention for woes you refuse to fix with resources at your fingertips.
> 
> Oh! And for this husband being gone a lot, pokes a huge hole in her claim of his constant requests for sex. Sounds like he longs for his wifes heart and body after being away from home alone working his a$$ off. He can't be constantly pestering when he is not even home everyday.


You might try googling "Missguided Mama" and reading more of her posts. She mentioned in one that she suffers from endometriosis. That might affect her drive, too.

It seems her bottom line is that she does not want to have sex if she is not in the mood. And the husband's bottom line is that he wants it regardless of her feelings about it.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

jld said:


> You might try googling "Missguided Mama" and reading more of her posts. She mentioned in one that she suffers from endometriosis. That might affect her drive, too.
> 
> It seems her bottom line is that she does not want to have sex if she is not in the mood. And the husband's bottom line is that he wants it regardless of her feelings about it.


I don't see his bottom line as "regardless of her feelings" otherwise he would not be "hinting." Her own words describing her "sex god saint" of a husband poke holes in her sob story.

It is tremendously clear to me she chooses what she wants to spend her time doing, like multiple blogs, building her image, instead of her husband.


----------



## farsidejunky

jld said:


> You might try googling "Missguided Mama" and reading more of her posts. She mentioned in one that she suffers from endometriosis. That might affect her drive, too.
> 
> It seems her bottom line is that she does not want to have sex if she is not in the mood. And the husband's bottom line is that he wants it regardless of her feelings about it.


I think it could contribute. But why did you have to dig to uncover that? It seems to me that if it were a significant problem it would have been mentioned in her article. Nary a word on it in there.


----------



## Cosmos

EllisRedding said:


> Seems like quite a generalization that ED happens to men frequently??? How did you arrive at that assumption??? And who is having blinding headaches?


It's difficult to say how prevalent it actually is because it often goes unreported / untreated, but one would assume that Viagra would not have been developed if it were not a fairly common problem... Researchers have identified that one quarter of men seeking help for ED are younger than 40 and half of these men reported severe ED.:-

_"Several studies have looked at the prevalence of ED. The Massachusetts Male Aging Study1 reported a prevalence of 52%. The study demonstrated that ED is increasingly prevalent with age. At age 40, approximately 40% of men are affected. The rate increases to nearly 70% in men aged 70 years. The prevalence of complete ED increases from 5% to 15% as age increases from 40 to 70 years.1 Age was the variable most strongly associated with ED.

Following adjustment for age, a higher probability was noted in patients with heart disease, hypertension, diabetes, and those taking associated medications. Cigarette smoking in this study did not correlate with a greater probability of complete ED. However, when it was associated with heart disease and hypertension, a higher probability of ED was noted.

Incidence estimates have been published using data compiled from the Massachusetts Male Aging Study.2 Incidence data are necessary to assess risk and plan treatment and prevention strategies. The Massachusetts study data suggest there will be approximately 17,781 new cases of ED in Massachusetts and 617,715 in the United States annually.

A larger national study, the National Health and Social Life Survey, looked at sexual function in men and women. This study surveyed 1410 men aged 18 to 59 years, and it also documented an increase in ED with age. Additionally, the study found a decrease in sexual desire with increasing age. Men in the oldest cohort (those aged 50-59 years) were more than 3 times as likely to experience erection problems and to report low sexual desire compared to men aged 18 to 29 years. Experience of sexual dysfunction was more likely among men in poor physical and emotional health. It was also concluded that sexual dysfunction is an important public health concern and added that emotional issues are likely to contribute to the experience of these problems."_

http://www.clevelandclinicmeded.com...ndocrinology/erectile-dysfunction/Default.htm

According to UK statistics:-_

1 in 10 men in the world are thought to suffer from erectile dysfunction.
It is estimated that half of all men who have diabetes suffer from erectile dysfunction.
If a man smokes more than 1 packet of cigarettes per day then they have a 50% higher chance of erectile problems than a man who is a non-smoker.
Men over the age of 75 have a 77.5% chance of suffering from erectile problems.
Men between the ages of 20 and 29 only have a 6.5% chance of having erectile problems.
It is thought that erectile dysfunctions cause the breakdown of 20% of all relationships.
A shocking estimate is that only 33% of men who have erectile dysfunctions seek help and advice about their problems.
If you have problems with your erections 20% or less of the time then it is unlikely that you will need treatment.
Over 20 million men all over the world have used or are currently using Viagra to treat erectile dysfunction.
In 66% of the times that Viagra is taken, men are able to have sexual intercourse.
48% of men suffer one or more side effects when using Viagra.
Underlying health issues such as diabetes or heart disease account for 70% of all erectile dysfunction cases.
Psychological causes such as stress and anxiety are estimated to cause around 10 % to 20% of all erectile dysfunction cases.
It is estimated that in 80% of all cases the causes of erectile problems are down to physical reasons._

http://www.healthcentre.org.uk/pharmacy/erectile-dysfunction-statistics.html

So unfortunately it is more prevalent than many think.


----------



## always_alone

farsidejunky said:


> Not to thread jack, A_A, but the more I read about your SO the more I am stunned that he is still your SO.
> 
> He is one of the last people I would use as a control group/example with this subject.


That's interesting. Because most of what I've been told here pretty much echoes what I'm told by him.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

"I'm one of those moms that never dreamed of being a mom. I never dreamed of marriage, babies or houses as a little girl. So clearly, when I got married, and knocked up just weeks later I was blind-sided. I'm still jilted."

This says it all for me from her Misguided Mama blog.....


----------



## Blossom Leigh

farsidejunky said:


> I think it could contribute. But why did you have to dig to uncover that? It seems to me that if it were a significant problem it would have been mentioned in her article. Nary a word on it in there.



Correct....

I see her attitude as her biggest problem


----------



## always_alone

EllisRedding said:


> Seems like quite a generalization that ED happens to men frequently??? How did you arrive at that assumption??? And who is having blinding headaches?


http://www.clevelandclinicmeded.com...ndocrinology/erectile-dysfunction/Default.htm

Orgasm Can Bring Bad Headache


----------



## EllisRedding

Cosmos said:


> It's difficult to say how prevalent it actually is because it often goes unreported / untreated, but one would assume that Viagra would not have been developed if it were not a fairly common problem... Researchers have identified that one quarter of men seeking help for ED are younger than 40 and half of these men reported severe ED.:-
> 
> _"Several studies have looked at the prevalence of ED. The Massachusetts Male Aging Study1 reported a prevalence of 52%. The study demonstrated that ED is increasingly prevalent with age. At age 40, approximately 40% of men are affected. The rate increases to nearly 70% in men aged 70 years. The prevalence of complete ED increases from 5% to 15% as age increases from 40 to 70 years.1 Age was the variable most strongly associated with ED.
> 
> Following adjustment for age, a higher probability was noted in patients with heart disease, hypertension, diabetes, and those taking associated medications. Cigarette smoking in this study did not correlate with a greater probability of complete ED. However, when it was associated with heart disease and hypertension, a higher probability of ED was noted.
> 
> Incidence estimates have been published using data compiled from the Massachusetts Male Aging Study.2 Incidence data are necessary to assess risk and plan treatment and prevention strategies. The Massachusetts study data suggest there will be approximately 17,781 new cases of ED in Massachusetts and 617,715 in the United States annually.
> 
> A larger national study, the National Health and Social Life Survey, looked at sexual function in men and women. This study surveyed 1410 men aged 18 to 59 years, and it also documented an increase in ED with age. Additionally, the study found a decrease in sexual desire with increasing age. Men in the oldest cohort (those aged 50-59 years) were more than 3 times as likely to experience erection problems and to report low sexual desire compared to men aged 18 to 29 years. Experience of sexual dysfunction was more likely among men in poor physical and emotional health. It was also concluded that sexual dysfunction is an important public health concern and added that emotional issues are likely to contribute to the experience of these problems."_
> 
> http://www.clevelandclinicmeded.com...ndocrinology/erectile-dysfunction/Default.htm


Her statement was that it happens to men frequently (so implying all men frequently battle ED). Not saying it doesn't happen. However, if you even look at your study the prevalence of ED is in part due to age. Also, it is noted that physical and emotional health are contributing factors, so there are a lot of factors that could contribute to ED.


----------



## jld

farsidejunky said:


> I think it could contribute. But why did you have to dig to uncover that? It seems to me that if it were a significant problem it would have been mentioned in her article. Nary a word on it in there.


I think these blog posts are a kind of stream of consciousness writing, in some ways. She is sharing her thoughts as she goes along in life, not preparing a complete essay describing her medical history.

Blossom, she may be selfish. I think most humans are. I am not sure I know anyone without a high degree of concern for what they are getting out of life. 

The husband knows her background and is pressing for his own interests, too. That hardly seems selfless to me.


----------



## always_alone

Cosmos said:


> It's difficult to say how prevalent it actually is because it often goes unreported / untreated, but one would assume that Viagra would not have been developed if it were not a fairly common problem... Researchers have identified that one quarter of men seeking help for ED are younger than 40 and half of these men reported severe ED.:-


Beat me to it! And with a better post!


----------



## EllisRedding

always_alone said:


> http://www.clevelandclinicmeded.com...ndocrinology/erectile-dysfunction/Default.htm
> 
> Orgasm Can Bring Bad Headache





always_alone said:


> Beat me to it! And with a better post!


Never said it can't happen, my point was simply your post reads as if all men battle frequent ED and blinding headaches which is not true. As the articles also state, there are a variety of factors (age, physical/emotional health, etc...) that play a role.


----------



## always_alone

EllisRedding said:


> Her statement was that it happens to men frequently (so implying all men frequently battle ED). Not saying it doesn't happen. However, if you even look at your study the prevalence of ED is in part due to age. Also, it is noted that physical and emotional health are contributing factors, so there are a lot of factors that could contribute to ED.


This was not at all the implication. That it is a common problem for men is simply a true statement. And my point had nothing to do with what all men experience or don't experience, it was merely to suggest that it is very easy to say that you would do "everything" to meet your partner's sexual needs when "everything" is already what you can and want to do.

It is much harder when you can't or if it takes a great toll on you.


----------



## EllisRedding

always_alone said:


> This was not at all the implication. That it is a common problem for men is simply a true statement. And my point had nothing to do with what all men experience or don't experience, it was merely to suggest that it is very easy to say that you would do "everything" to meet your partner's sexual needs when "everything" is already what you can and want to do.
> 
> It is much harder when you can't or if it takes a great toll on you.


Fair enough if that was not your implication. I hate talking about this for fear it will jinx me and I won't be able to get it up next time lol. Never heard of the headache issues, or actually the opposite, that sex can actually alleviate headaches, in particular those who suffer from migraines (such as myself).


----------



## Blossom Leigh

jld said:


> Blossom, she may be selfish. I think most humans are. I am not sure I know anyone without a high degree of concern for what they are getting out of life.
> 
> The husband knows her background and is pressing for his own interests, too. That hardly seems selfless to me.


He has offered solutions.

She doesn't engage.


Therefore she is blocking progress.

Why wouldn't he be concerned.


----------



## always_alone

EllisRedding said:


> Never heard of the headache issues, or actually the opposite, that sex can actually alleviate headaches, in particular those who suffer from migraines (such as myself).


I became acquainted with this one the hard way. My SO would start getting the headache as soon as he started to get an erection, and it would build and build until he was in excruciating pain.

Thankfully, it wasn't a permanent problem. But it was quite regular for a period of time.


----------



## jld

Blossom Leigh said:


> He has offered solutions.
> 
> She doesn't engage.
> 
> 
> Therefore she is blocking progress.
> 
> Why wouldn't he be concerned.


But what is his motive, Blossom?


----------



## Blossom Leigh

always_alone said:


> I became acquainted with this one the hard way. My SO would start getting the headache as soon as he started to get an erection, and it would build and build until he was in excruciating pain.
> 
> Thankfully, it wasn't a permanent problem. But it was quite regular for a period of time.


What fixed it?


----------



## Blossom Leigh

jld said:


> But what is his motive, Blossom?



From what I gather sex for him is a part of emotional closeness with her...

She's not allowing him that opportunity

Therefore he feels unloved

And felt it confirmed when she gave him the hall pass

when she reduced him to tears with it


----------



## jld

Blossom Leigh said:


> From what I gather sex for him is a part of emotional closeness with her...
> 
> She's not allowing him that opportunity
> 
> Therefore he feels unloved
> 
> And felt it confirmed when she gave him the hall pass
> 
> when she reduced him to tears with it


He wants to feel loved, in the way he wants to feel it. Does that sum it up?


----------



## Cosmos

EllisRedding said:


> Her statement was that it happens to men frequently (so implying all men frequently battle ED). Not saying it doesn't happen. However, if you even look at your study the prevalence of ED is in part due to age. Also, it is noted that physical and emotional health are contributing factors, so there are a lot of factors that could contribute to ED.


Age is _certainly_ a major contributing factor, as also general physical / mental health, habits etc. Similarly, age (as also hormonal and other factors) would also appear to play a part when it comes to sexual dysfunction in women - being particularly prevalent in women who have just given birth / have young children and menopausal women.


----------



## EllisRedding

Cosmos said:


> Age is _certainly_ a major contributing factor, as also general physical / mental health, habits etc. Similarly, age (as also hormonal and other factors) would also appear to play a part when it comes to sexual dysfunction in women - being particularly prevalent in women who have just given birth / have young children and menopausal women.


So basically, stay in great shape (mentally and physically) and never get old. :grin2:


----------



## Blossom Leigh

jld said:


> He wants to feel loved, in the way he wants to feel it. Does that sum it up?


He values sex as part of their emotional intimacy.

A large part.

Especially at such a young age, which is very normal.



This woman prides herself on being a rough talker....

"Missguided Mama.Princess of Profanity and Expletive Expert. Giving my kids enough material to write a book about me one day, until then, they're my material."

I have no respect for her, especially when she uses that rough attitude and words to injure her husband.

That is in no way ok with me REGARDLESS of her why...


----------



## Cosmos

always_alone said:


> I became acquainted with this one the hard way. My SO would start getting the headache as soon as he started to get an erection, and it would build and build until he was in excruciating pain.
> 
> Thankfully, it wasn't a permanent problem. But it was quite regular for a period of time.


Was he checked out for sex induced migraines, AA? Apparently, headaches during sex are more common than some may think and are due to blood vessels constricting in the body, particularly the brain.

I'm glad that the problem has resolved itself!


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Yea, I am a serious non-fan of this chick....

I'm not a fan of the baby stage. Like, anything 0-12 months.
Before I had a baby of my own, I despised babies. (I still kinda do).


Someone would hand me a baby to hold and I'd put my arms out like a zombie. As if I was about to hold the most vile creature in the world. I would sweat. I wanted to puke.


When I had my first baby, I was fine for about two weeks. No visceral reaction to her babyness. I meannnn, I was high on new mommy adrenaline, Oxytocin and straight up fear.


Then the family visits stopped. My husband went back to work. It was me. Alone. With this baby.


My hormones (you know those happy, adrenaline new mom hormones?) tanked. Diaper changes ad nauseum. I was a milk machine (that didn't even produce enough milk to feed my child). Formula stinks like dog food. The laundry full of soiled onesies is at least a mile high. The baby cried and sometimes I had no idea why. And the constant thoughts going through my mind, "I'm bored. I'm trapped. I'm ****ing exhausted. When is it naptime? When is it bedtime?"


So on and so forth.


I've always been insanely jealous of the moms that say they fell in love with their babies the moment they laid eyes on them. It seems like this romantic love between a mother and her baby is what is splashed on every billboard, TV commercial and parenting book.


And here I am admitting that I'm not smitten with my baby. Like, I'm some confessed killer.




Here's the obligatory, "Yes, I love my daughter and wouldn't change it for the world." There, you happy? I'm not _completely_ screwed up. I just don't like babies. And here's why:


*1. Breastfeeding.* Leaky nipples, chaffed nipples, engorged boobs, blocked ducts, need I go on?


*2. Projectile poop.* That **** can shoot clear across a room. No one prepared me for that.


*3. They don't sleep.* Or if they do sleep – they sleep when you don't want them to. My daughter would take these awesome 5 hour naps in the afternoon and then not sleep for more than 2 hours at night. When I tried to fix her day/night confusion it only made things worse – because then she didn't sleep at all.


*4. They're fragile.* I was constantly worried I would break my daughter's bones just by holding her the "wrong" way. Or that I'd accidentally cause her to suffocate if I swaddled her the wrong way.


*5. They don't communicate like the rest of us.* They can't. It's a guessing game. So with every cry you have to investigate, and possibly try like 5 different things (diaper change? Bottle? Swaddle? Tummy time? Swing?) before you figure out what your baby is telling you.


*6. They're funny or cute for like 2 seconds,* and then they are either hungry, poopy, too cold, too hot, tired, WHATEVER BABIES ARE for like the whole rest of the day. Funny and cute are sometimes way too far and few between.


*7. Most babies look like aliens.* Mine did.




*8. Babies cry in restaurants.* And it's annoying embarrassing and frustrating. Not even worth an IHOP tab. I'll eat a bowl of Cheerios at home before I bring a baby to a restaurant. Side note- babies cry on planes too. Which sucks for everyone on that plane, but I gauran-****in'-teeeee that it sucks more for the parent of that child. I've been on both sides, thank you very much.


*9. Baby car seats are in fact, rocket science.* They're hard to install, move and strap. And after you do figure it all out, and the baby is in it, – he or she is probably screaming bloody murder. Because babies don't like car seats.


*10. Everyone tries to touch babies.* Which means, everyone tries to talk to you…the parent. At the mall, at the grocery store, pumping gas, in a public restroom. Duuuuudddeee, I don't like people.I especially don't like random strangers coming up to me and saying to my kid, "OOoohhhhhh, mmmeeyyyy gooossshhh, aren't you a cutie patootey, little bbbabbbbbyyyy, yes you are..muah muah muah. Wook at those wittle toesie woesies." Ugh.


Babies. What's to _like_?!


----------



## samyeagar

always_alone said:


> I am just as happy to rip apart stereotypes of men, and have done so reasonably regularly. And I'm sorry if you found that post offensive. I wasn't trying to discount your experience, merely to articulate my own. *It honestly never would have occurred to me that I was being offensive if I offered my SO a hall pass. I would've thought it a favour, certainly more of a sacrifice for me than for him.*
> 
> And I'm not really sure how I'd react if he offered me one. I'm inclined to think I'd see it as a selfless gesture on his part, but maybe I'm fooling myself. I can say though that him cheating on me is much more of an instant dealbreaker than him offering me the opportunity to cheat.


You have said such a few times now...your husband may indeed be OK with the idea of a hall pass, and if you are correct, it shows that you truly know and understand him.

For me, if my wife suggested a hall pass in either direction, it would likely be the immediate end of our marriage because it would show me that she did not know or understand me in the least.


----------



## jld

samyeagar said:


> For me, if my wife suggested a hall pass in either direction, it would likely be the immediate end of our marriage because it would show me that she did not know or understand me in the least.


This sounds like the blogger's husband. He is focused on his reaction to what she said, and not on her and what motivated her to say it.


----------



## EllisRedding

jld said:


> This sounds like the blogger's husband. He is focused on his reaction to what she said, and not on her and what motivated her to say it.


Because Sam takes fidelity seriously? Its not like she just blurted it out, she made it clear she had thought this over before saying to him...


----------



## jld

EllisRedding said:


> Because Sam takes fidelity seriously? Its not like she just blurted it out, she made it clear she had thought this over before saying to him...


Like she said, because she loves him, and wants him to be satisfied, she came up with that idea. 

She does not strike me as a woman who gets turned on by seeing her husband, or thinking of him, with other women.

The emphasis with Sam and the blogger's husband is on their reaction to the offer, not on what prompted the offer. Focusing on what prompted it could lead to healthy conflict resolution.


----------



## EllisRedding

jld said:


> Like she said, because she loves him, and wants him to be satisfied, she came up with that idea.
> 
> She does not strike me as a woman who gets turned on by seeing her husband, or thinking of him, with other women.
> 
> The emphasis with Sam and the blogger's husband is on their reaction to the offer, not on what prompted the offer. Focusing on what prompted it could lead to healthy conflict resolution.


The difference in our POV is I see her offering this as a form of manipulation, especially with her adding "conditions" to it. We can both only make assumptions based on what we read from the blog.


----------



## Buddy400

always_alone said:


> What if she needed you to do something that you hated?


Then I'd suspect that she'd have to either plan on doing without forever or get divorced.

I wouldn't expect her to stick around and be happy hoping that at some indefinite time in the future I'd stop hating it.

If she stopped "pressuring" me, I wouldn't be more likely to want to do it. I'd just think that she had apparently stopped needing it and go happily on my way.


----------



## jld

EllisRedding said:


> The difference in our POV is I see her offering this as a form of manipulation, especially with her adding "conditions" to it. We can both only make assumptions based on what we read from the blog.


I think you see her as powerful. I do not. Or, I only see her as having the power her husband gives her.

I really wish he would have laughed and scooped her up in his arms when she said that. She probably would have burst into tears if he had said he knew she did not mean that, but she must be feeling pretty bad if she felt obligated to say something so ridiculous, and he was wondering how he had contributed to that. I am sure she would like to feel understood, and have her basic goodness affirmed.

My pov, obviously.


----------



## Buddy400

always_alone said:


> This was not at all the implication. That it is a common problem for men is simply a true statement. And my point had nothing to do with what all men experience or don't experience, it was merely to suggest that it is very easy to say that you would do "everything" to meet your partner's sexual needs when "everything" is already what you can and want to do.
> 
> It is much harder when you can't or if it takes a great toll on you.


I have had bouts of ED during which I gladly took care of my wife's sexual needs. It wouldn't have occurred to me not to. I was glad that given a physical problem which I had little control over, I was still able to. 

It would have been very selfish of me to say "well I have a problem which you had nothing to do with, so you will have a problem as well".


----------



## EllisRedding

jld said:


> I think you see her as powerful. I do not. Or, I only see her as having the power her husband gives her.
> 
> I really wish he would have laughed and scooped her up in his arms when she said that. She probably would have burst into tears if he had said he knew she did not mean that, but she must be feeling pretty bad if she felt obligated to say something so ridiculous, and he was wondering how he had contributed to that. I am sure she would like to feel understood, and have her basic goodness affirmed.
> 
> My pov, obviously.


No, I don't see her as powerful in the least bit.


----------



## samyeagar

jld said:


> Like she said, because she loves him, and wants him to be satisfied, she came up with that idea.
> 
> She does not strike me as a woman who gets turned on by seeing her husband, or thinking of him, with other women.
> 
> The emphasis with Sam and the blogger's husband is on their reaction to the offer, not on what prompted the offer. Focusing on what prompted it could lead to healthy conflict resolution.


Obviously, I can't speak to exactly how her husband interpreted the offer, but it does sound similar to how I would...offering a hall pass as a possible resolution to the impasse would communicate to me that she had absolutely no consideration for what sex means to me in a committed relationship, that the idea of a hall pass is repulsive in the extreme to me. My feelings on the matter have been communicated quite clearly, and early on in our relationship, so the mere suggestion would suggest she either didn't believe me, didn't trust me to mean what I say, or simply didn't care.


----------



## Buddy400

jld said:


> This sounds like the blogger's husband. He is focused on his reaction to what she said, and not on her and what motivated her to say it.


To me, the most important quality in a wife is that she have enough control over her emotions that she is capable of saying what she means and not saying what she doesn't mean. I expect her to be an adult.

If I have to guess what she wants on a regular basis; not interested.


----------



## Fozzy

Cosmos said:


> Was he checked out for sex induced migraines, AA? Apparently, headaches during sex are more common than some may think and are due to blood vessels constricting in the body, particularly the brain.
> 
> I'm glad that the problem has resolved itself!


It stands to reason headaches can be a result of erections in some men since it's one of the main side effects of viagra.


----------



## samyeagar

jld said:


> I think you see her as powerful. I do not. Or, I only see her as having the power her husband gives her.
> 
> I really wish he would have laughed and scooped her up in his arms when she said that. *She probably would have burst into tears if he had said he knew she did not mean that*, but she must be feeling pretty bad if she felt obligated to say something so ridiculous, and he was wondering how he had contributed to that. I am sure she would like to feel understood, and have her basic goodness affirmed.
> 
> My pov, obviously.


Yeah, because women just loooove being told that they don't mean what they say, and being discounted. That's tantamount to saying "She's just on the rag..."

My wife has a temper, and can say some pretty harsh things in the heat of the moment, but I never discount her, and never assume she doesn't mean it. I will wait until things have cooled off and ask her specifically what she meant, and how she meant it, but I never blow her off as not meaning it.


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> What she says is this:
> 
> 
> 
> And you don't think that's pressure?
> 
> If you *really* loved me, you wouldn't argue!


Here's the thing, A_A. You're making sexual intimacy/connection sound like doing the dishes. Which is really the way she's thinking about it.

It's a need for most marriages to stay healthy.

Asking for sex isn't pressuring unless a "no" isn't respected or he's being irritating about it. She makes it clear this isn't the case. 

Making it clear that the relationship needs sex, even if he has to wait for it, is healthy and a good thing.

Calling it 'exhausting' and 'pressure' is like calling it 'pressure' to say a fire need air, fuel, and a spark to burn. 

Besides, she sure has time to blog and facebook and pat herself on her back... seems like a priority realignment is warrented.


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> Like she said, because she loves him, and wants him to be satisfied, she came up with that idea.
> 
> She does not strike me as a woman who gets turned on by seeing her husband, or thinking of him, with other women.
> 
> The emphasis with Sam and the blogger's husband is on their reaction to the offer, not on what prompted the offer. Focusing on what prompted it could lead to healthy conflict resolution.


If she's not turned on by him anymore, that's a conversation that needs to happen.

Not a passive aggressive feigned "hall pass" that she knew he wouldn't act on, and gave _her_ the hall pass to actually work on their marriage problems.

It's a very manipulative DARVO tactic.


----------



## always_alone

Blossom Leigh said:


> And felt it confirmed when she gave him the hall pass
> 
> when she reduced him to tears with it


There is no indication that she reduced him to tears with it. Indeed, it was her eyes that welled up:



> "I just wish you'd **** someone else. Have a free pass. Don't let me know – just do it. I can't **** you like you need. Just be safe, and don't fall in love."
> 
> My husband looked shocked and hurt.
> 
> "You don't love me anymore," he said, lowering his voice.
> 
> *My* eyes swelled up, but no tears. I looked down at the ground. Didn't he understand? I offered because I DO love him.
> 
> He looked genuinely crushed.
> 
> "Have you even considered the possible consequences of me ****ing someone else?"
> 
> I found my voice after getting choked up.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

always_alone said:


> There is no indication that she reduced him to tears with it. Indeed, it was her eyes that welled up:



He was crushed A_A

I interpret that as crying on the inside whether he showed it on the outside or not.


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> There is no indication that she reduced him to tears with it. Indeed, it was her eyes that welled up:


I wonder...

If her tears were from admitting failure, or realizing that she can't or won't be what her husband needs...

Or her plan succeeding, and feeling guilt from that?

Or all of the above?

Anyway, I think we're spectacularly overthinking things. 10 minutes on her blog/facebook will tell you all you need to know about this woman. You can try to project all you want on her... an overburdened mom, or the trials and tribulations of maintaining a sex drive or connection with your husband after kids, or whatever knots you want to twist yourself up in to see her.

If you need to read one post of hers, it's about locking her child in a hot car and forgetting about it... and how she's really not a terrible person for it.


----------



## Cosmos

Fozzy said:


> It stands to reason headaches can be a result of erections in some men since it's one of the main side effects of viagra.


Which is one of the reasons why I encourage my SO to use Viagra as little as possible. The poor guy gets the most excruciating headaches afterwards, and I'd rather 'go without' than see him suffer. It's difficult, though, because I don't find foreplay alone particularly satisfying, but I'd never hurt him by letting him know this. It's all about compromise.


----------



## always_alone

samyeagar said:


> Obviously, I can't speak to exactly how her husband interpreted the offer, but it does sound similar to how I would...offering a hall pass as a possible resolution to the impasse would communicate to me that she had absolutely no consideration for what sex means to me in a committed relationship, that the idea of a hall pass is repulsive in the extreme to me. My feelings on the matter have been communicated quite clearly, and early on in our relationship, so the mere suggestion would suggest she either didn't believe me, didn't trust me to mean what I say, or simply didn't care.


I would presume that he was less adamant in establishing how repulsive such an offer would be to him early on, otherwise, she probably wouldn't have considered it at all.

I've never had any guy I've dated tell me that monogamy is important to them or that they would be offended if I were to suggest they had sex with someone else. Indeed, I've heard many, many, many a guy talk quite enthusiastically about sleeping with people other than their wives or gfs, without a qualm in sight. 

So, you know, if your guy is happy to substitute with porn, likes to chat with his friends about who and what he'd like to "hit", then it would be a bit more like mind reading to guess that he would get upset at the thought of a hall pass.


----------



## always_alone

Fozzy said:


> It stands to reason headaches can be a result of erections in some men since it's one of the main side effects of viagra.


I am talking without Viagra. Just spontaneous. It may not be ultra common, but it's common enough to have it's own name and a bunch of research and talk about it on medical sites.


----------



## jld

EllisRedding said:


> No, I don't see her as powerful in the least bit.


You are asking her to solve his problem, no? That sure makes her look powerful, to me.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

marduk said:


> If she's not turned on by him anymore, that's a conversation that needs to happen.
> 
> Not a passive aggressive feigned "hall pass" that she knew he wouldn't act on, and gave _her_ the hall pass to actually work on their marriage problems.
> 
> It's a very manipulative DARVO tactic.


I think you are giving her too much credit.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

Buddy400 said:


> To me, the most important quality in a wife is that she have enough control over her emotions that she is capable of saying what she means and not saying what she doesn't mean. I expect her to be an adult.
> 
> If I have to guess what she wants on a regular basis; not interested.


She may not be a good match for you, and may prove not to be one for her husband, either.

Sometimes, when people are overwhelmed, they speak out of emotion rather than reason. And not everyone has healthy reasoning skills. 

They could be learned, though.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Blossom Leigh

jld said:


> I think you are giving her too much credit.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I think she is out of control emotionally and mentally and needs to be held to account.


----------



## EllisRedding

Cosmos said:


> Which is one of the reasons why I encourage my SO to use Viagra as little as possible. The poor guy gets the most excruciating headaches afterwards, and I'd rather 'go without' than see him suffer. It's difficult, though, because I don't find foreplay alone particularly satisfying, but I'd never hurt him by letting him know this. It's all about compromise.


Advil/Aleve + nasal decongestant prior to using. This was suggested in another thread as a way to avoid the ED med headache.


----------



## jld

Blossom Leigh said:


> I think she is out of control emotionally and mentally and needs to be held to account.


I think she is overwhelmed and trying to do the best she can with what she presently has to work with.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## EllisRedding

jld said:


> You are asking her to solve his problem, no? That sure makes her look powerful, to me.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Nope, I never said this falls all on her.


----------



## Cosmos

EllisRedding said:


> Advil/Aleve + nasal decongestant prior to using. This was suggested in another thread as a way to avoid the ED med headache.


I wonder if this would work despite his BP meds (which cause the ED)? I'll suggest that he mention it to his doc on his next visit. I just don't want to exacerbate his frustration / exbarrassment further.


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> I would presume that he was less adamant in establishing how repulsive such an offer would be to him early on, otherwise, she probably wouldn't have considered it at all.
> 
> I've never had any guy I've dated tell me that monogamy is important to them or that they would be offended if I were to suggest they had sex with someone else. Indeed, I've heard many, many, many a guy talk quite enthusiastically about sleeping with people other than their wives or gfs, without a qualm in sight.
> 
> So, you know, if your guy is happy to substitute with porn, likes to chat with his friends about who and what he'd like to "hit", then it would be a bit more like mind reading to guess that he would get upset at the thought of a hall pass.


Sounds like you scraped the bottom of the barrel a bit on the dating scene.

I've had a few single buddies tell me the same regarding women on the dating scene. One that a buddy really liked... when he asked if they could be sexually exclusive... said "Why would I want to do that? I'll never be exclusive with anyone."

His response, which shows a lot of strength because he really was into her and they were great in the sack...

"Ok, I understand. I need someone that will commit to just me. Goodbye."


----------



## jld

EllisRedding said:


> Nope, I never said this falls all on her.


What, specifically, are you asking him to do? Because I think she is pretty entrenched in her position. If change is going to come before five years' time, I think it will be up to him to get it going.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> I think you are giving her too much credit.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Lol!

Look at her blog...

Could be summed up in this image:


----------



## EllisRedding

Cosmos said:


> I wonder if this would work despite his BP meds (which cause the ED)? I'll suggest that he mention it to his doc on his next visit. I just don't want to exacerbate his frustration / exbarrassment further.


I would definitely check with his doctor. I have used Viagra on a handful of occasions (recreational, don't need it but like the extra kick it gives or if it looks like a marathon session is on its way lol). The first few times the headaches/migraines were unbearable to the point it wasn't worth using. I did try the advil/sudafed (or nasal spray) method recommended here and it took care of the headache issues. I don't take any meds though, so hopefully his Dr could shed some light (although I don't believe advil/aleive impacts BP?).


----------



## jld

marduk said:


> Lol!
> 
> Look at her blog...
> 
> Could be summed up in this image:


I think that is her way of keeping herself going.

I am not saying it is healthy. I think it would be better if she had the self-confidence to be humble.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## IDon'tKnowAnymore

I don't know... to each his own, and I know there are couples who are happy in an "open" marriage.

As for me... ABSOLUTELY NOT.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

jld said:


> I think she is overwhelmed and trying to do the best she can with what she presently has to work with.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


She is not doing her best,. She teaches her children to curse like sailors and thinks its hilarious.... she is out of control.


I have the most foul mouth of any woman I know. The F word is pretty frequent. And all other curse words make it into my daily dialogue at least once. You should hear me driving. Anyone who’s in the car with me cringes. 
 
“You idiot!”
“Oh that’s ****ing nice, cut me off!”
“What Fast and Furious you think you gotta big ****!”

So it’s no surprise that my 2 year old daughter has picked it up. It comes out randomly. It started off as “Shut Up” when her baby sister was born. Then it moved to “****, **** ****,” when she dropped toys. And then it progressed to my favorite, “****ing Driver!” she would yell whenever there was a toy wheel present that even slightly resembled a steering wheel.
Anytime a curse word came out I would die laughing to the point of tears and my husband would give me the usual watch your mouth lecture. She’s got such a teeny, “innocent” girl voice, and then to hear her shout swear words – I can’t help it! It’s hilarious. My husband is disgusted by the cursing.

I’m at library storytime with my kids, my mommy friend and her 2 year old daughter (the girls are like 3 weeks apart). 
Half-way through IT happened. My 2 year old stands up during a story and yells, “I ****ing hate this storytime ****.” Me and mommy friend look at each other with eyes wide open our mouths wide open with a half smile and we lose it. In front of all of the other normal mommies, we are laughing, crying and almost rolling on the floor. For like 2 minutes straight I have a look of shock, deer in headlights and pure happiness while laughing uncontrollably. I don’t even know what the reactions were from the other moms – I couldn’t see out of my tear-glazed eyes.

I did respectfully tell my friend it was time to bring my smut-mouth daughter home. At some point, when I can muster a straight face (and believe me, I’ve tried)…I will tell my daughter that it’s a bad word and she can’t say it. Until then it’s how she expresses her ****ing feelings.


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> I think that is her way of keeping herself going.
> 
> I am not saying it is healthy. I think it would be better if she had the self-confidence to be humble.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


You will make any excuse for her double failures of ego and weakness.

A bad mixture, that. With only one solution: for everyone around her to stop congratulating her, and exposing her to reality instead.


----------



## IDon'tKnowAnymore

As for sex... I do know this...
SEX IS IMPORTANT.

It is a basic need.

It is NO excuse to step outside of the marriage. However, it's one way to stay connected. 
And throughout my entire marriage, I've always been aware of this. I think a man appreciates it, that even if you're not in the mood, you care enough to be willing to participate. And if you don't... well... he will find other ways. It doesn't excuse bad behavior, but it's human (male) nature.

That's just my take on it.

Now THAT does not explain infidelity, so don't go thinking that if a guy cheats on you, it's because of something you did or didn't do. 
Despite our seemingly happy sex life... at one point (at LEAST ONE, that I'm aware of) my husband did "step out"... and it had nothing to do with me... it had to do with that hole in his soul that no one... to this day, can fill. No one but he, himself.


----------



## Marduk

Blossom Leigh said:


> She is not doing her best,. She teaches her children to curse like sailors and thinks its hilarious.... she is out of control.
> 
> 
> I have the most foul mouth of any woman I know. The F word is pretty frequent. And all other curse words make it into my daily dialogue at least once. You should hear me driving. Anyone who’s in the car with me cringes.
> 
> “You idiot!”
> “Oh that’s ****ing nice, cut me off!”
> “What Fast and Furious you think you gotta big ****!”
> 
> So it’s no surprise that my 2 year old daughter has picked it up. It comes out randomly. It started off as “Shut Up” when her baby sister was born. Then it moved to “****, **** ****,” when she dropped toys. And then it progressed to my favorite, “****ing Driver!” she would yell whenever there was a toy wheel present that even slightly resembled a steering wheel.
> Anytime a curse word came out I would die laughing to the point of tears and my husband would give me the usual watch your mouth lecture. She’s got such a teeny, “innocent” girl voice, and then to hear her shout swear words – I can’t help it! It’s hilarious. My husband is disgusted by the cursing.
> 
> I’m at library storytime with my kids, my mommy friend and her 2 year old daughter (the girls are like 3 weeks apart).
> Half-way through IT happened. My 2 year old stands up during a story and yells, “I ****ing hate this storytime ****.” Me and mommy friend look at each other with eyes wide open our mouths wide open with a half smile and we lose it. In front of all of the other normal mommies, we are laughing, crying and almost rolling on the floor. For like 2 minutes straight I have a look of shock, deer in headlights and pure happiness while laughing uncontrollably. I don’t even know what the reactions were from the other moms – I couldn’t see out of my tear-glazed eyes.
> 
> I did respectfully tell my friend it was time to bring my smut-mouth daughter home. At some point, when I can muster a straight face (and believe me, I’ve tried)…I will tell my daughter that it’s a bad word and she can’t say it. Until then it’s how she expresses her ****ing feelings.


Ran into a very similar woman on vacation recently.

She started swearing at her kids, calling one of them a dumbass and ****ing stupid.

My wife and I stood there shocked... she had a 10 year old, a 3-4 year old, and what looked like a 4-6 month old in her arms.

Then she started to start swearing at us.... saying "yes I swear at my ****ing children, what the **** is wrong with that, you damn yuppies are the problem with America!" I laughed. Given that we were neither young, childless, or even American. 

My wife didn't. And told her (first politely, then with seething anger) to shut up. I thought... here we go, I get to fight some 300lb dude on a street corner of a major US city on vacation. 

Her husband tried to stop her, thankfully short circuiting any violence, and looked sheepish about the whole thing.

I ushered my wife into a cab, while this lady looked shocked that some little woman would dare talk back to her. Given this woman was well over 300lbs herself...

Well, I could just imagine a similar thing going on with ScaryMommy. I'm sure this lady also got tired of being skinny, taking care of her kids, etc.


----------



## jld

Blossom, I am not comfortable with that, either. But approaching people with judgment is risky.

If they listen, it can work out great. But not many people are humble enough to hear their faults from strangers.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## EllisRedding

jld said:


> What, specifically, are you asking him to do? Because I think she is pretty entrenched in her position. If change is going to come before five years' time, I think it will be up to him to get it going.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I have posted my thoughts several times on this. They should sit down, lay out all theirs issues/needs, etc... and try to come up with a plan to address them. And before you say 50/50, I am not saying literally 50/50. They may find that many of the items on the list are for her to work on, or vice versa. By doing this, you then hold each other accountable. If they really care about the marriage, they will fight for it and do what is necessary. If one person doesn't follow through, well, that should be a pretty big warning sign. They are a couple, time to act like a couple, put on your big boy (or girl) pants.

I realize this goes against your approach. IMO, your approach is what gives her the power and makes him weak. You are asking H to put all of her needs before anything else, so effectively enabling her behavior. Next time things go south or don't go her way, she will just act the same way knowing that her H will come cowering over to her to accept the blame and assume responsibility for fixing it. I am not asking either person to assume the role of power or weakness, but to work as a TEAM to right the ship. This has worked for my wife and I as we just dealt with very similar issues (I guess what made it easier for me is my Wife isn't cold and manipulative, and had a strong desire to get our marriage back  ).


----------



## Cosmos

Actually, her blogs are a little ambiguous... The hall pass blog gives the impression that she's suffering from a total loss in libido, but in her blog on The Truth About Sex after kids she sounds as though she can't get enough of it, despite her exhaustion...

The Truth About Sex After Kids - Scary Mommy


----------



## Marduk

FrenchFry said:


> @marduk
> 
> Can you link the blog post with the kids in the car?
> 
> I didn't realize Scary Mommy was more of an aggregator than an indidivual blog site run by one person. I haven't found the leaving the kids in the carseat post on MissGuided Mama (The Author) yet.
> 
> @blossomLeigh
> 
> Here is the thing--not all moms are fluffy moms. You know how many times I've googled "am I a bad mother?" because I was so frustrated during the baby stage ( I also really hated #12. The worst.)
> 
> I don't think casting stones at her like she is awful is going to change her at all.


The Grave Mistake that ANY Parent Could Make - Scary Mommy

Here's a fun one, too...

I'm a Lazy Mom, And I'm Not Apologizing - Scary Mommy


----------



## EleGirl

When I read the link in the OP, something stood out to me. She talks about how tired she is. I wondered why she is so tired and what, if anything she and her husband are doing to address this. so I read more of her blog and found out that here are some significant factors that might be contributing to her lack in libido. Here are two big ones that I found.

On 12/16/2014 she had surgery for Endometriosis. Her doctors are suggesting a total hysterectomy. Six years earlier she had laparoscopic excision for endometriosis. But, I've been in pain for the last 3 years. In her blog she talks about the excruciating pain, stabbing pains, etc. that she experiences often. Surgery for Endometriosis does not cure it. It only removes excess tissue. After the surgery, the body continues to produce extra tissue that often attaches itself to surrounding internal organs.

Endometriosis can kill a person's energy. The pain and other aspects of the disease can kill a woman's libido. 

There is something else in her blog. Her husband travels for work. He's gone weeks at a time. In order to maintain the in-love feelings in a relationship, a couple needs to spend a significant amount of time together. This build the non-sexual intimacy. Without that most women will lose their sexual desire. And, yes, most men will as well. It happens slowly over time.

Those are two huge strikes against the romance in her marriage. 

She has tried "faking it until she makes it". That did not work. She's been to doctors for all kinds of tests. 

I think that the woman who wrote the article is being honest. She has little to no libido. She has done things in attempts to address it. She does not know what to do to get her libido back. There might be no way for that to happen.

What happened to the "in sickness" part of the vows?


----------



## Marduk

Cosmos said:


> Actually, her blogs are a little ambiguous... The hall pass blog gives the impression that she's suffering from a total loss in libido, but in her blog on The Truth About Sex after kids she sounds as though she can't get enough of it, despite her exhaustion...
> 
> The Truth About Sex After Kids - Scary Mommy


She wants what she wants when she wants it and if she doesn't, she just wants you to go away.

Lazy selfish people act lazy and selfish. Shocking, I know.

This one just writes well and labels it empowerment.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

jld said:


> Blossom, I am not comfortable with that, either. But approaching people with judgment is risky.
> 
> If they listen, it can work out great. But not many people are humble enough to hear their faults from strangers.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Their lack of humility is not my problem.

My job is to speak the truth, end of story and right now I'm pissed at her and I would tell her straight up what I think of her attitude and out of control life. She is destructive and needs to get her s*** together. I normally have a LOT of sympathy/empathy and did until I dug further into her blog, upon your intivitation, then I lost TOTAL respect for her with what I'm finding there. Now I have zilch. I was hoping I was wrong... nope... She is worse that what I imagined.


----------



## ocotillo

All,

Scary Mommy is what was called an e-zine back in the day. Writers contribute articles and if the site owners like them they're published. --Very similar to a magazine.

The various authors should not be confused with each other.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

EleGirl said:


> When I read the link in the OP, something stood out to me. She talks about how tired she is. I wondered why she is so tired and what, if anything she and her husband are doing to address this. so I read more of her blog and found out that here are some significant factors that might be contributing to her lack in libido. Here are two big ones that I found.
> 
> On 12/16/2014 she had surgery for Endometriosis. Her doctors are suggesting a total hysterectomy. Six years earlier she had laparoscopic excision for endometriosis. But, I've been in pain for the last 3 years. In her blog she talks about the excruciating pain, stabbing pains, etc. that she experiences often. Surgery for Endometriosis does not cure it. It only removes excess tissue. After the surgery, the body continues to produce extra tissue that often attaches itself to surrounding internal organs.
> 
> Endometriosis can kill a person's energy. The pain and other aspects of the disease can kill a woman's libido.
> 
> There is something else in her blog. Her husband travels for work. He's gone weeks at a time. In order to maintain the in-love feelings in a relationship, a couple needs to spend a significant amount of time together. This build the non-sexual intimacy. Without that most women will lose their sexual desire. And, yes, most men will as well. It happens slowly over time.
> 
> Those are two huge strikes against the romance in her marriage.
> 
> She has tried "faking it until she makes it". That did not work. She's been to doctors for all kinds of tests.
> 
> I think that the woman who wrote the article is being honest. She has little to no libido. She has done things in attempts to address it. She does not know what to do to get her libido back. There might be no way for that to happen.
> 
> What happened to the "in sickness" part of the vows?


I have been in chronic daily pain, and exhausted since I was in my early 30's.
I'm now 46. I don't deny my spouse.


----------



## Fozzy

FrenchFry said:


> @marduk
> 
> Can you link the blog post with the kids in the car?
> 
> I didn't realize Scary Mommy was more of an aggregator than an indidivual blog site run by one person. I haven't found the leaving the kids in the carseat post on MissGuided Mama (The Author) yet.
> 
> @blossomLeigh
> 
> Here is the thing--not all moms are fluffy moms. You know how many times I've googled "am I a bad mother?" because I was so frustrated during the baby stage ( I also really hated #12. The worst.)
> 
> I don't think casting stones at her like she is awful is going to change her at all.



I looked pretty far back on Misguided Mama and the only post i could find about kids in hot cars was very much AGAINST leaving kids in hot cars, and didn't indicate that she'd ever done it. July 2014.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

FrenchFry said:


> @*marduk*
> 
> That's what I thought: all of those articles are written by different women.
> 
> Sarah is MissGuided Mama and probably has different issues than the other women on this site.
> 
> I'm a Lazy Mom is pretty much how to keep your Marriage Alive 101. Stop focusing on your kids, teach them self sufficiency and stop helicoptering them.
> 
> Grave Mistake is ridiculous and scary. I hope she learned her lesson.
> 
> Over on Missguided Mama, Ms. Sarah isn't really that abrasive, outlandish or selfish. Sounds like a normal mom to me, honestly. I would have a coffee with her and chat about where we are going to move when our children turn 18.
> 
> So, don't villify her based on the Scary Mommy Aggregate. Scary Mommy is Buzzfeed. Scary Mommy is HuffPo. Scary Mommy is not one terrible woman on a mission to ruin her kids and her husband.


My opinion has been formed strictly from Misguided Mama blog.


----------



## Cosmos

The hall pass blog was written by one Sarah Hosseini, who has a blog called *Missguided Mama, but the other blogs over at Scary Mommy are by different authors.

* http://www.missguidedmama.com/


----------



## Fozzy

FrenchFry said:


> @marduk
> 
> That's what I thought: all of those articles are written by different women.
> 
> Sarah is MissGuided Mama and probably has different issues than the other women on this site.
> 
> *I'm a Lazy Mom is pretty much how to keep your Marriage Alive 101. Stop focusing on your kids, teach them self sufficiency and stop helicoptering them. *
> 
> Grave Mistake is ridiculous and scary. I hope she learned her lesson.
> 
> Over on Missguided Mama, Ms. Sarah isn't really that abrasive, outlandish or selfish. Sounds like a normal mom to me, honestly. I would have a coffee with her and chat about where we are going to move when our children turn 18.
> 
> So, don't villify her based on the Scary Mommy Aggregate. Scary Mommy is Buzzfeed. Scary Mommy is HuffPo. Scary Mommy is not one terrible woman on a mission to ruin her kids and her husband.


Our kids are destructive forces of nature and any cleaning is instantly undone. It took my wife a while to let go a little bit. The house suffers, but our sanity improved.

I agree that kids need to fend for themselves to some extent. You can sink 100% of your energy into the kids and your marriage will die on the vine.

On the flipside you get parents like what Marduk ran into, which is how this blogger comes off in some (not all) of her posts. I get it that many of her "20 reasons I hate my kids" posts are for humor and I don't really tie those to the original post I linked to. THAT one I don't see as being a humorous post unless it sailed right over my head.


----------



## EllisRedding

Fozzy said:


> Our kids are destructive forces of nature and any cleaning is instantly undone. It took my wife a while to let go a little bit. The house suffers, but our sanity improved.


This sounds exactly how things are at my house lol.


----------



## Fozzy

jld said:


> Blossom, I am not comfortable with that, either. But approaching people with judgment is risky.
> 
> If they listen, it can work out great. *But not many people are humble enough to hear their faults from strangers.*
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


LOL! Isn't that what TAM is all about?


----------



## EleGirl

Cosmos said:


> Actually, her blogs are a little ambiguous... The hall pass blog gives the impression that she's suffering from a total loss in libido, but in her blog on The Truth About Sex after kids she sounds as though she can't get enough of it, despite her exhaustion...
> 
> The Truth About Sex After Kids - Scary Mommy


The link you posted is to a blog post written by Lea Grover

The link in the OP is to a blog post written by Sarah Hosseini, or Missguided Mama. Here is a link to the MissguidedMama blog.

Missguided Mama: About Me


----------



## jld

Blossom Leigh said:


> Their lack of humility is not my problem.
> 
> My job is to speak the truth, end of story and right now I'm pissed at her and I would tell her straight up what I think of her attitude and out of control life. She is destructive and needs to get her s*** together. I normally have a LOT of sympathy/empathy and did until I dug further into her blog, upon your intivitation, then I lost TOTAL respect for her with what I'm finding there. Now I have zilch. I was hoping I was wrong... nope... She is worse that what I imagined.


I think speaking your truth can be a gift to people. Sometimes we cannot see ourselves as accurately as others see us. And sometimes their vision is limited, too.


----------



## EleGirl

marduk said:


> She wants what she wants when she wants it and if she doesn't, she just wants you to go away.
> 
> Lazy selfish people act lazy and selfish. Shocking, I know.
> 
> This one just writes well and labels it empowerment.


You are confusing the articles written by several authors as though they are written by the woman who wrote the blog-post in the OP.


----------



## EleGirl

Blossom Leigh said:


> I have been in chronic daily pain, and exhausted since I was in my early 30's.
> I'm now 46. I don't deny my spouse.


Good for you. You suffer from pain from a back injury if I recall correctly.

It's a very good idea to realize that people are different. What works with you, might not work with others. What debilitates another person might not debilitate you.

Endometriosis is different. It can mess with a person's hormones, libido and other things. It can leave a person exhausted.


----------



## EleGirl

Fozzy said:


> Our kids are destructive forces of nature and any cleaning is instantly undone. It took my wife a while to let go a little bit. The house suffers, but our sanity improved.
> 
> I agree that kids need to fend for themselves to some extent. You can sink 100% of your energy into the kids and your marriage will die on the vine.
> 
> On the flipside you get parents like what Marduk ran into, which is how this blogger comes off in some (not all) of her posts. I get it that many of her "20 reasons I hate my kids" posts are for humor and I don't really tie those to the original post I linked to. THAT one I don't see as being a humorous post unless it sailed right over my head.


Can you please post a link to her "20 reasons I hate my kids" post


----------



## Fozzy

EleGirl said:


> Can you please post a link to her "20 reasons I hate my kids" post


That's not an actual title, just more of a theme. She does a lot of list-type posts, many of which are about how she finds her children annoying.


----------



## samyeagar

always_alone said:


> I would presume that he was less adamant in establishing how repulsive such an offer would be to him early on, otherwise, she probably wouldn't have considered it at all.
> 
> I've never had any guy I've dated tell me that monogamy is important to them or that they would be offended if I were to suggest they had sex with someone else. Indeed, I've heard many, many, many a guy talk quite enthusiastically about sleeping with people other than their wives or gfs, without a qualm in sight.
> 
> So, you know, if your guy is happy to substitute with porn, likes to chat with his friends about who and what he'd like to "hit", then it would be a bit more like mind reading to guess that he would get upset at the thought of a hall pass.


If, after the time my wife and I have spent together, she chose to hold me to the stereotypes about men she has had ingrained in her, rather than believe me, the man standing in front of her, our relationship would be over.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

EleGirl said:


> Good for you. You suffer from pain from a back injury if I recall correctly.
> 
> It's a very good idea to realize that people are different. What works with you, might not work with others. What debilitates another person might not debilitate you.
> 
> Endometriosis is different. It can mess with a person's hormones, libido and other things. It can leave a person exhausted.


Not quite...

I have, bone pain, tendon pain, skin and muscle pain from my ankles to my neck. My severest pain is in my pelvis since my entire hip region across the entire backside all the way around to the front of my hips hurt. My child at 50 lbs can crawl into my lap and cause severe pain, so you can imagine a man at 275 lbs and strong as an Ox getting passionate especially around my hips could cause me not to go there plus exhaustion, but because I love him and he is important to me I am his, whenever he wants me.


----------



## always_alone

marduk said:


> Besides, she sure has time to blog and facebook and pat herself on her back... seems like a priority realignment is warrented.


Interesting that I just read a post by you that made it quite clear that your wife is a part of your life, but not your life. You too have quite a bit of time for other things, it would seem. 

Would you have this blogger make her husband her whole life?


----------



## always_alone

samyeagar said:


> If, after the time my wife and I have spent together, she chose to hold me to the stereotypes about men she has had ingrained in her, rather than believe me, the man standing in front of her, our relationship would be over.


Again, you seem to be assuming that the blogger's husband made his attitudes as abundantly clear to his wife as you have made yours to your wife.

Maybe he did. Maybe he didn't. 

Maybe he actually has quite different attitudes than you.


----------



## farsidejunky

always_alone said:


> Interesting that I just read a post by you that made it quite clear that your wife is a part of your life, but not your life. You too have quite a bit of time for other things, it would seem.
> 
> Would you have this blogger make her husband her whole life?


False choice. 

It does not have to be feast or famine, rather an incremental adjustment of her priorities.


----------



## always_alone

farsidejunky said:


> False choice.
> 
> It does not have to be feast or famine, rather an incremental adjustment of her priorities.


And what about him? Or are his priorities unassailable?


----------



## EleGirl

Blossom Leigh said:


> Not quite...
> 
> I have, bone pain, tendon pain, skin and muscle pain from my ankles to my neck. My severest pain is in my pelvis since my entire hip region across the entire backside all the way around to the front of my hips hurt. My child at 50 lbs can crawl into my lap and cause severe pain, so you can imagine a man at 275 lbs and strong as an Ox getting passionate especially around my hips could cause me not to go there plus exhaustion, but because I love him and he is important to me I am his, whenever he wants me.



Does your husband know that him having sex from you puts in excruciating pain? That it's a horrible experience for you? And he's ok with that?


----------



## farsidejunky

always_alone said:


> And what about him? Or are his priorities unassailable?


I am sure there are things he could adjust as well. 

But that is a bit murky given her ringing endorsement of him as a husband and lover.


----------



## jld

farsidejunky said:


> I am sure there are things he could adjust as well.
> 
> But that is a bit murky given her ringing endorsement of him as a husband and lover.


Do you think she might be speaking out of guilt?

Is it possible she has mixed feelings, some of which she herself may not be entirely aware?


----------



## EleGirl

always_alone said:


> Interesting that I just read a post by you that made it quite clear that your wife is a part of your life, but not your life. You too have quite a bit of time for other things, it would seem.
> 
> Would you have this blogger make her husband her whole life?


Another point is that this woman is generating income from her blog. That's pretty clear.

She is a journalist based on her education and previous career. The Blog most likely helps her keep current, keep her name out there. 

She has 2-3 blog posts a month. That's not a lot of time dedicated to the blog. But it's about what it takes to keep the review up.

I suppose though that the money she generates and her career are of no importance. She's probably going to end up needing that career sooner than later.


----------



## farsidejunky

jld said:


> Do you think she might be speaking out of guilt?
> 
> Is it possible she has mixed feelings, some of which she herself may not be entirely aware?


There is enough gaps in the article to speculate anything, guilt included.

That is really the crux of the problem in this debate.


----------



## always_alone

EleGirl said:


> She's probably going to end up needing that career sooner than later.


No kidding. A backup plan is usually a good idea, but is especially helpful when your needs simply cannot be recognized as legitimate in any way, and unless you can reconcile yourself to the "my way or the highway" attitude, it's gonna have to be the highway.


----------



## EleGirl

jld said:


> Do you think she might be speaking out of guilt?
> 
> Is it possible she has mixed feelings, some of which she herself may not be entirely aware?


In one of her blog posts, she says that he travels a lot and I gone weeks at time. It sounds like he's gone most of the time. That's not a way for him to build a strong relationship with his wife. 

So, yea, he has something things on fix on his side of the road. But his career seems to be his first priority.

She might very well have mixed feelings. There is a good chance that she knows better than to say anything negative about her husband on a public blog. Doing that would be pretty stupid.

She came as close to doing that as she is probably comfortable with in the two blog posts, the one in the OP and the one about him traveling.

They both have things that need to be addressed. Vilifying her won't fix anything.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

EleGirl said:


> Does your husband know that him having sex from you puts in excruciating pain? That it's a horrible experience for you? And he's ok with that?


He is very aware of my pain.

Its not horrible every single time, nor is it for her by her own words inspite of her endo, in fact she called it off the charts.

He takes care of me and many times our romps start because he has been massaging me because of the pain. It is frequent I experience pain during our sex time, but I push it out of my mind when possible and remain engaged. Unfortunately some of the worst stabs of pain is during orgasm. 

I'm transparent about it but I don't burden him with it. I handle being a woman to my man. Its just who I am. I am highly affectionate and no amount of pain will take that from me


----------



## jld

EleGirl said:


> They both have things that need to be addressed. Vilifying her won't fix anything.


Totally agree, Ele.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

EleGirl said:


> In one of her blog posts, she says that he travels a lot and I gone weeks at time. It sounds like he's gone most of the time. That's not a way for him to build a strong relationship with his wife.
> 
> So, yea, he has something things on fix on his side of the road. But his career seems to be his first priority.
> 
> She might very well have mixed feelings. There is a good chance that she knows better than to say anything negative about her husband on a public blog. Doing that would be pretty stupid.
> 
> She came as close to doing that as she is probably comfortable with in the two blog posts, the one in the OP and the one about him traveling.
> 
> They both have things that need to be addressed. Vilifying her won't fix anything.


She saves that for her twitter account when she told him happy fathers day m'fer.


----------



## EleGirl

Blossom Leigh said:


> He is very aware of my pain.
> 
> Its not horrible every single time, nor is it for her by her own words inspite of her endo, in fact she called it off the charts.
> 
> He takes care of me and many times our romps start because he has been massaging me because of the pain. It is frequent I experience pain during our sex time, but I push it out of my mind when possible and remain engaged. Unfortunately some of the worst stabs of pain is during orgasm.
> 
> I'm transparent about it but I don't burden him with it. I handle being a woman to my man. Its just who I am. I am highly affectionate and no amount of pain will take that from me


Do you completely lack a libido?


----------



## samyeagar

always_alone said:


> Again, you seem to be assuming that the blogger's husband made his attitudes as abundantly clear to his wife as you have made yours to your wife.
> 
> Maybe he did. Maybe he didn't.
> 
> Maybe he actually has quite different attitudes than you.


For sure, experiences vary, but I suspect that most couples, after spending significant time together have a pretty damned good idea on how their partner feels on issues such as this whether or not they explicitly said so. Of course it's usually best to openly talk about these things, but again, a conscientious partner would have picked up on enough to have a really good idea about their partners feelings.


----------



## morituri

always_alone said:


> Interesting that I just read a post by you that made it quite clear that your wife is a part of your life, but not your life. You too have quite a bit of time for other things, it would seem.
> 
> Would you have this blogger make her husband her whole life?


But unlike the blogger, Marduk has not broadcast to the whole bloody world that his wife ranks low on his list of the important things in his life. THAT is a huge difference.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

EleGirl said:


> Do you completely lack a libido?


No, never have.

She doesn't appear to either.


----------



## always_alone

morituri said:


> But unlike the blogger, Marduk has not broadcast to the whole bloody world that his wife ranks low on his list of the important things in his life. THAT is a huge difference.


I'm guessing that marduk will take exception to this characterization of how he feels about his wife.

Me, I'm just flabbergasted at the very notion that it is perfectly fine to keep your spouse low on your list of priorities as long as you don't tell anyone about it.


----------



## always_alone

samyeagar said:


> For sure, experiences vary, but I suspect that most couples, after spending significant time together have a pretty damned good idea on how their partner feels on issues such as this whether or not they explicitly said so. Of course it's usually best to openly talk about these things, but again, a conscientious partner would have picked up on enough to have a really good idea about their partners feelings.


Okay, well I guess I'm especially clueless then. I never really knew my SO's attitudes about that sort of thing until about 15 years into our relationship, when I asked him point blank why he chose to be in a monogamous relationship, and whether he would find it desirable to open up the relationship to third parties.

I suppose I should have asked sooner, but those were heady days, and I actually thought that he just thought that I was the bees' knees. 

Live and learn.


----------



## Fozzy

always_alone said:


> Again, you seem to be assuming that the blogger's husband made his attitudes as abundantly clear to his wife as you have made yours to your wife.
> 
> Maybe he did. Maybe he didn't.
> 
> Maybe he actually has quite different attitudes than you.


It's possible he feels that he made it clear when he vowed to forsake all others.


----------



## Marduk

FrenchFry said:


> @marduk
> 
> That's what I thought: all of those articles are written by different women.
> 
> Sarah is MissGuided Mama and probably has different issues than the other women on this site.
> 
> I'm a Lazy Mom is pretty much how to keep your Marriage Alive 101. Stop focusing on your kids, teach them self sufficiency and stop helicoptering them.
> 
> Grave Mistake is ridiculous and scary. I hope she learned her lesson.
> 
> Over on Missguided Mama, Ms. Sarah isn't really that abrasive, outlandish or selfish. Sounds like a normal mom to me, honestly. I would have a coffee with her and chat about where we are going to move when our children turn 18.
> 
> So, don't villify her based on the Scary Mommy Aggregate. Scary Mommy is Buzzfeed. Scary Mommy is HuffPo. Scary Mommy is not one terrible woman on a mission to ruin her kids and her husband.


OK, I didn't realize that...

However, birds of a feather...


----------



## EleGirl

Blossom Leigh said:


> No, never have.
> 
> She doesn't appear to either.


I don't know why you say that she does not appear to lack libido. She clearly states that she does.

She says that she has tried to bring back her libido, has been to a doctor for checkups, etc. But none of that worked. So I don't know where you get the idea that she is lying.


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> Interesting that I just read a post by you that made it quite clear that your wife is a part of your life, but not your life. You too have quite a bit of time for other things, it would seem.
> 
> Would you have this blogger make her husband her whole life?


I would have her focus on what is important to her -- whichever 'her' this might be, now I'm confused.

At any rate, I would question someone who is too tired to 'stay skinny,' having children 'exhausting' and finds her husband asking for sex 'pressure' and thought giving her husband a hall pass was a good idea and not manipulative at all... yet has time and energy to blog...

At least be forthright to everyone about what her priorities are.


----------



## Marduk

farsidejunky said:


> I am sure there are things he could adjust as well.
> 
> But that is a bit murky given her ringing endorsement of him as a husband and lover.


And his willingness to support her, be patient, and not **** other women even though she said it was ok.

I'm sure he's the devil.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

EleGirl said:


> I don't know why you say that she does not appear to lack libido. She clearly states that she does.
> 
> She says that she has tried to bring back her libido, has been to a doctor for checkups, etc. But none of that worked. So I don't know where you get the idea that she is lying.


Back to where it was "super sexual"... she doesn't say its totally gone. How could someone who has zero libido in the same article claim the sex is off the charts. Its more accurate to say I don't believe her and is why I said she talks out of both sides of her mouth.


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> Do you think she might be speaking out of guilt?
> 
> Is it possible she has mixed feelings, some of which she herself may not be entirely aware?


Life is hard, and having people depend on you is scary.

Film at 11.


----------



## morituri

High levels of prolactin or a pituitary tumor have been known to kill libido. Hormone ratio and levels as well. It's worth having those checked out.

It's not a sin not feeling sexual desire but it is if a spouse doesn't show her/his concern by doing everything in her/his power to resolve the issue. Caring, more than libido, IS what is probably more at stake here.


----------



## Marduk

EleGirl said:


> In one of her blog posts, she says that he travels a lot and I gone weeks at time. It sounds like he's gone most of the time. That's not a way for him to build a strong relationship with his wife.
> 
> So, yea, he has something things on fix on his side of the road. But his career seems to be his first priority.
> 
> She might very well have mixed feelings. There is a good chance that she knows better than to say anything negative about her husband on a public blog. Doing that would be pretty stupid.
> 
> She came as close to doing that as she is probably comfortable with in the two blog posts, the one in the OP and the one about him traveling.
> 
> They both have things that need to be addressed. Vilifying her won't fix anything.


Yes, because it's really terrible in the real world where people are held accountible.

Best to just lay blame at her husband for judging her, or putting her in a situation where she feels sorry for herself.


----------



## Cosmos

> Originally Posted by EleGirl
> Do you completely lack a libido?





Blossom Leigh said:


> No, never have.
> 
> She doesn't appear to either.


She does say:-


> I even initiated some nights. I broke out my sexy lingerie and pounced on him like a porn star. I was pretending to be horny. *I was faking a libido*


and


> Why can't I be super sexual again? Why don't I ever feel like doin' it? Why can't I pull out the wild pony tricks of my past? *How can having a baby ruin my libido like this?*


It sounds to me that she's as frustrated at her loss of libido as her H is...


----------



## Blossom Leigh

morituri said:


> High levels of prolactin or a pituitary tumor have been known to kill libido. Hormone ratio and levels as well. It's worth having those checked out.
> 
> It's not a sin not feeling sexual desire but it is if a spouse doesn't show her/his concern by doing everything in her/his power to resolve the issue. Caring, more than libido, IS what is probably more at stake here.


She had hormone levels checked and they were normal.


----------



## EleGirl

always_alone said:


> Okay, well I guess I'm especially clueless then. I never really knew my SO's attitudes about that sort of thing until about 15 years into our relationship, when I asked him point blank why he chose to be in a monogamous relationship, and whether he would find it desirable to open up the relationship to third parties.
> 
> I suppose I should have asked sooner, but those were heady days, and I actually thought that he just thought that I was the bees' knees.
> 
> Live and learn.


I don't think you are especially clueless at all.

Look at how many people are totally shocked when they find out that their spouse is cheating, or has cheated. Up to that point they thought they knew what their spouse's attitude was.


----------



## Marduk

morituri said:


> But unlike the blogger, Marduk has not broadcast to the whole bloody world that his wife ranks low on his list of the important things in his life. THAT is a huge difference.


My wife is very high on my list.

But my self-respect is higher.

And my children's welfare even higher than that.


----------



## always_alone

Fozzy said:


> It's possible he feels that he made it clear when he vowed to forsake all others.


I dunno. Vowing to forsake all others just means that you agree to do it. Not necessarily that you want to do it. Or that you wouldn't be open to reconsidering at some later date.

I mean, I get that you and many of the guys here feel very strongly about sexual exclusivity and intimacy with your partners. I'm not trying to discount that or persuade you otherwise.

It's just that TAM is truly the first place that I even really encountered this idea, or put a whole lot of thought into it. And certainly when I learned that I'm not wanted or desirable, my reaction was to be depressed. So I get that too.

But, I guess, instead of fighting it, I've adopted a more "when in Rome" attitude. If that's how he feels, well, that's how he feels. If I can't stand it, I best be getting out of Rome.


----------



## jld

EllisRedding said:


> I have posted my thoughts several times on this. They should sit down, lay out all theirs issues/needs, etc... and try to come up with a plan to address them. And before you say 50/50, I am not saying literally 50/50. They may find that many of the items on the list are for her to work on, or vice versa. By doing this, you then hold each other accountable. If they really care about the marriage, they will fight for it and do what is necessary. If one person doesn't follow through, well, that should be a pretty big warning sign. They are a couple, time to act like a couple, put on your big boy (or girl) pants.
> 
> I realize this goes against your approach. IMO, your approach is what gives her the power and makes him weak. You are asking H to put all of her needs before anything else, so effectively enabling her behavior. Next time things go south or don't go her way, she will just act the same way knowing that her H will come cowering over to her to accept the blame and assume responsibility for fixing it. I am not asking either person to assume the role of power or weakness, but to work as a TEAM to right the ship. This has worked for my wife and I as we just dealt with very similar issues (I guess what made it easier for me is my Wife isn't cold and manipulative, and had a strong desire to get our marriage back  ).


My approach empowers him to go to her with empathy and initiate open communication instead of sitting around on his victim chair waiting for her to make things all better for him.

Your approach might work once they start communicating on a deeper level, but someone has to get things going. I am asking him to. He is the one asking for change, after all.

I strongly object to her being obliged to accept responsibility for meeting his needs without her concerns being addressed, too. I think that is what women have lived with since time immemorial. I think it limits men's growth and encourages, as Dug said yesterday, a sense of entitlement.


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> I dunno. Vowing to forsake all others just means that you agree to do it. Not necessarily that you want to do it. Or that you wouldn't be open to reconsidering at some later date.
> 
> I mean, I get that you and many of the guys here feel very strongly about sexual exclusivity and intimacy with your partners. I'm not trying to discount that or persuade you otherwise.
> 
> It's just that TAM is truly the first place that I even really encountered this idea, or put a whole lot of thought into it. And certainly when I learned that I'm not wanted or desirable, my reaction was to be depressed. So I get that too.
> 
> But, I guess, instead of fighting it, I've adopted a more "when in Rome" attitude. If that's how he feels, well, that's how he feels. If I can't stand it, I best be getting out of Rome.


I grok what you're saying. If they both agree not to be exclusive because she doesn't want sex... fine. It's not cheating, it's an agreement.

The problem isn't in the operationalization of him ****ing other women. The problem is that she would rather not put effort into many areas of her life, and would rather outsource her commitment to him than stand up to it.

Because, you know, life is hard and stuff. Celebrate me!


----------



## always_alone

marduk said:


> My wife is very high on my list.
> 
> But my self-respect is higher.
> 
> And my children's welfare even higher than that.


But this blogger is lazy, selfish, and evil because she doesn't want to put her husband's libido above absolutely everything else?


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Cosmos said:


> She does say:-
> 
> 
> and
> 
> 
> It sounds to me that she's as frustrated at her loss of libido as her H is...


as well as...

*When we do have sex, it's off the charts.* 

As much as our sexual Sahara bothers my husband, it bothers me too. Why can't I be *super* sexual again?

I even had my hormones tested; maybe I could blame those.
Nope, the tests came back* normal.*


I don't heat up under the hood *as much as I used to.*



I'll be sure to put that advice on my how-NOT-to-save-my-marriage list. Because *adding more items to my current to-do list will cause me to go clinically insane.*



*I can't be physically and emotionally available to my husband like I used to be*. There are a bazillion reasons why being romantically available can't happen as often as I'd like – *kids, work, travel, activities, *etc. and *her body image*..(*Which I could cry about *that for another 5 lines, but I'll spare you.)


For godssakes, the sex will come. The dates will come. The courtship. The passion. And if they don't for a *year … or two or five* … that's 



OK.


*She can't be bothered with him.... 
*


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> But this blogger is lazy, selfish, and evil because she doesn't want to put her husband's libido above absolutely everything else?


If that were on it's own, I'd give her the benefit of the doubt and be a lot more accepting of her pity party.

The fact that it ties into a larger pattern, even in this single article...

I just don't get why anybody would rush to her defence.

Add that to the fact that the way she went about it was clearly manipulation of the highest order...

I stand by my opinion.


----------



## EleGirl

The ScaryMummy website has removed MissguidedMama's name from the article in the OP.

I wonder if it's due to all the negative traffic coming from TAM.

Would not be surprised.


----------



## jld

I do not get where anyone sees manipulation. She was trying to satisfy him while preserving her own sense of dignity. She does not want to have sex if she does not feel like it. That is where she is with it.


----------



## EllisRedding

jld said:


> My approach empowers him to go to her with empathy and initiate open communication instead of sitting around on his victim chair waiting for her to make things all better for him.
> 
> Your approach might work once they start communicating on a deeper level, but someone has to get things going. I am asking him to. He is the one asking for change, after all.
> 
> *I strongly object to her being obliged to accept responsibility for meeting his needs without her concerns being addressed, too. I think that is what women have lived with since time immemorial. I think it limits men's growth and encourages, as Dug said yesterday, a sense of entitlement.*


No one should be sitting around. Also, you keep saying he is asking for the change, but yet she is the one who went ahead and decided the dynamics of their marriage should change...

For the bolded, who said her needs won't be addressed? That is way off point from what I have said. It is about them addressing THEIR needs together (not "you take care of my needs first and then hopefully I will be ready for you"). The entitlement as I see goes to the female in your situation, not the male.


----------



## Fozzy

EleGirl said:


> The ScaryMummy website has removed MissguidedMama's name from the article in the OP.
> 
> I wonder if it's due to all the negative traffic coming from TAM.
> 
> Would not be surprised.


???

I still see her name as the author and a short bio about her at the bottom.


----------



## jld

EllisRedding said:


> No one should be sitting around. Also, you keep saying he is asking for the change, but yet she is the one who went ahead and decided the dynamics of their marriage should change...
> 
> For the bolded, who say her needs won't be addressed? That is way off point from what I have said. It is about them addressing THEIR needs together (not "you take care of my needs first and then hopefully I will be ready for you"). The entitlement as I see goes to the female in your situation, not the male.


They had children. That appears to have been the impetus for the resultant change.

I guess we just disagree on who is the entitled one here.


----------



## EllisRedding

jld said:


> They had children. That appears to have been the impetus for the resultant change.
> 
> *I guess we just disagree on who is the entitled one here.*


I thought we agreed on the bolded a while ago :grin2:


----------



## jld

EllisRedding said:


> I thought we agreed on the bolded a while ago :grin2:


Not sure what that has to do with this.


----------



## EllisRedding

jld said:


> Not sure what that has to do with this.


Huh, we have had very similar conversations about this already in this thread, probably only a few days ago (entitlement, etc...) and had come to the conclusion we view entitlement differently (hence my comment). What am I missing here


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> I do not get where anyone sees manipulation. She was trying to satisfy him while preserving her own sense of dignity. She does not want to have sex if she does not feel like it. That is where she is with it.


She 100% did not expect to him to say yes. And he didn't.

My only advice to her husband would have been to say "OK" just to see what her reaction would be.

I'd be very suprised if it were anything but negative, hostile, or passive-aggressive. And then he would have been the bad guy.

This is how DARVO works. I'm making a ****ty decision, and I'm going to make you feel bad about it.


----------



## EleGirl

Blossom Leigh said:


> as well as...
> 
> *When we do have sex, it's off the charts.*
> 
> As much as our sexual Sahara bothers my husband, it bothers me too. Why can't I be *super* sexual again?
> 
> I even had my hormones tested; maybe I could blame those.
> Nope, the tests came back* normal.*
> 
> 
> I don't heat up under the hood *as much as I used to.*
> 
> 
> 
> I'll be sure to put that advice on my how-NOT-to-save-my-marriage list. Because *adding more items to my current to-do list will cause me to go clinically insane.*
> 
> 
> 
> *I can't be physically and emotionally available to my husband like I used to be*. There are a bazillion reasons why being romantically available can't happen as often as I'd like – *kids, work, travel, activities, *etc. and *her body image*..(*Which I could cry about *that for another 5 lines, but I'll spare you.)
> 
> 
> For godssakes, the sex will come. The dates will come. The courtship. The passion. And if they don't for a *year … or two or five* … that's
> 
> 
> 
> OK.
> 
> 
> *She can't be bothered with him....
> *


Their marriage has problems. That's clear. 

She has a low, to no libido.

Their marriage is in trouble. That's clear. But ripping her apart as though she is an evil b!tch is not going to help anyone. Her feelings and needs are every bit as important as her husband's. Why his are more important than hers (according to a lot of posters on here) is a mystery to me.

She's busy because she has a life that exists when her husband is not at home. He's not at home most of time. He travels weeks on end. Because he is gone all the time she had to build a life without him. 

"She can't be bothered with him...."

There is a good chance that she feels like he cannot be bothered with her most of time since he's gone most of the time. It's a real possibility.

Most marriages cannot survive this kind of ongoing absence. 

Add to that a lack of libido and her health issues, and yea, her sex drive has plummeted. 

Low libido is caused by many things both physical and physiological. My bet is that both are going on here.

On the physical side, low hormones are not the only thing that lead to low libido. For example a person can have normal hormone levels and still have low libido because of the interactions between other hormones in the body, how the body is using those hormones at that time, medications a person is taking, and a whole host of other things.


----------



## EleGirl

Fozzy said:


> ???
> 
> I still see her name as the author and a short bio about her at the bottom.


Hm... I just checked again and her name is gone... twilight zone :surprise:

ETA: Ok, I closed down IE and reopened it. Now I see her name and bio again..... twilight zone :surprise:


----------



## jld

marduk said:


> She 100% did not expect to him to say yes. And he didn't.
> 
> My only advice to her husband would have been to say "OK" just to see what her reaction would be.
> 
> I'd be very suprised if it were anything but negative, hostile, or passive-aggressive. And then he would have been the bad guy.
> 
> This is how DARVO works. I'm making a ****ty decision, and I'm going to make you feel bad about it.


Tbh, I think that sounds paranoid.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Blossom Leigh

EleGirl said:


> Their marriage has problems. That's clear.
> 
> She has a low, to no libido.
> 
> Their marriage is in trouble. That's clear. But ripping her apart as though she is an evil b!tch is not going to help anyone. Her feelings and needs are every bit as important as her husband's. Why his are more important than hers (according to a lot of posters on here) is a mystery to me.
> 
> She's busy because she has a life that exists when her husband is not at home. He's not at home most of time. He travels weeks on end. Because he is gone all the time she had to build a life without him.
> 
> "She can't be bothered with him...."
> 
> There is a good chance that she feels like he cannot be bothered with her most of time since he's gone most of the time. It's a real possibility.
> 
> Most marriages cannot survive this kind of ongoing absence.
> 
> Add to that a lack of libido and her health issues, and yea, her sex drive has plummeted.
> 
> Low libido is caused by many things both physical and physiological. My bet is that both are going on here.
> 
> On the physical side, low hormones are not the only thing that lead to low libido. For example a person can have normal hormone levels and still have low libido because of the interactions between other hormones in the body, how the body is using those hormones at that time, medications a person is taking, and a whole host of other things.


I am very aware of many issues with libido, mine is not as strong as it was pre-baby, but its still there and I use it and I manage my life to make time for my H. I am intentional about it.

I'm one of the main ones that said they need a lifestyle change early in my postings in this thread. It is not lost on me.

What I take issue with today is digging into the rest of her posts and what I found there. She is about as crass as they come.

No dignified woman teaches small children to curse to the degree this woman has. She could care less about dignity.

I have character issues with her that go beyond her libido.


----------



## EleGirl

Blossom Leigh said:


> I am very aware of many issues with libido, mine is not as strong as it was pre-baby, but its still there and I use it and I manage my life to make time for my H.
> 
> I'm one of the main ones that said they need a lifestyle change early in my postings in this thread. It is not lost on me.
> 
> What I take issue with today is digging into the rest of her posts and what I found there. She is about as crass as they come.
> 
> No dignified woman teaches small children to curse to the degree this woman has. She could care less about dignity.
> 
> I have character issues with her that go beyond her libido.


Ok, so you do not like her so she's always wrong. Got it.

That's ok, you don't have to like her.


----------



## always_alone

jld said:


> I do not get where anyone sees manipulation. She was trying to satisfy him while preserving her own sense of dignity. She does not want to have sex if she does not feel like it. That is where she is with it.


I can't see the manipulation either. I mean, if I didn't want to have sex, I wouldn't, you know, want to have sex.

If I knew I was depriving my husband, I'd feel bad about it. I would try certain things to get that mojo back -- exactly as she did.

If I was at enough of a loss, and felt guilty about it, I might decide that him getting his sexual needs met was important enough for me to swallow my insecurities and unhappiness at him getting those needs met elsewhere. 

The prevalent assumption that she used this as a tactic to keep him down is foreign to me. I certainly wouldn't assume that he would say no. And I wouldn't assume that he would stay with me either.

She makes it pretty clear throughout that post that although she doesn't want it to spell the end of her marriage, she is very well aware that it might indeed do so. She certainly hopes that he can still have friendship and some intimacy with her while she is going through this, but I don't at all get the sense that she expects that it will necessarily happen this way.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

EleGirl said:


> Ok, so you do not like her so she's always wrong. Got it.
> 
> That's ok, you don't have to like her.


Don't put words in my mouth, Ele.

Her character issues make me question the integrity of her article as a whole.

I never said she is always wrong, nor do I believe that. 

She has my empathy to a degree, but at this point she would get that from me after tough love.

Had she caught me yesterday she would have had more of my ear, after knowing what I know now, I would take her to task first.


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> Tbh, I think that sounds paranoid.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Lol!

Ya, no reason to be paranoid when your wife tells you to go **** other women...

You guys are hilarious.


----------



## Marduk

EleGirl said:


> Ok, so you do not like her so she's always wrong. Got it.
> 
> That's ok, you don't have to like her.


False dichotomy.


----------



## jld

marduk said:


> Lol!
> 
> Ya, no reason to be paranoid when your wife tells you to go **** other women...
> 
> You guys are hilarious.


I am totally serious.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Blossom Leigh

FrenchFry said:


> I would bet her husband knows this and is okay with this part of her personality/child rearing skills and that this is not part of their marriage issues.
> 
> If not--it's one of those cases where we would warn people to look at their partner before marrying them.


Possible... and agreed.


----------



## EleGirl

marduk said:


> Lol!
> 
> Ya, no reason to be paranoid when your wife tells you to go **** other women...
> 
> You guys are hilarious.


I think that she is struggling to fine the words to that will help her husband know that she has no libido to the point of finding sex repulsive. She is struggling to figure out how to deal with this and save her marriage.

She very well might have been clueless enough to think giving him a hall pass would work until she solved her libido issues, if they ever can be solved.

I don't know. I've never had an issue with losing libido. But I know that about 40% of all women and 30% of men have sexual dysfunction at some time in their lifetime. For many of them it's not permanent. The chances increase with age.

I do know that it's hard for the marriages in which this happens. Plus, men choose to make their marriages sexless as often as women do. 

It takes a couple working together to find out what the issues are and to fix them. One person cannot fix them on their own.

Let's assume for a moment that she is telling the absolute truth. That she has no libido to the point of finding sex repulsive; she's done things from faking it to seeing the doctor and none of it has worked.

What is she supposed to do now?


----------



## Tall Average Guy

EleGirl said:


> What is she supposed to do now?


Be honest and not insulting. Not clear how honest she has been with him up to this point, but most men would find her offer of a hall pass to be insulting.

She should own up to that, lay out her perception of the issue and her (apparent) decision not to do anything more about it. Then see what he says.

The difficulty is that this looks like the granddaddy of all crap tests. My guess is that he will tell her, at least initial, what he thinks he is supposed to tell her, rather than the truth.


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> I can't see the manipulation either. I mean, if I didn't want to have sex, I wouldn't, you know, want to have sex.
> 
> If I knew I was depriving my husband, I'd feel bad about it. I would try certain things to get that mojo back -- exactly as she did.
> 
> If I was at enough of a loss, and felt guilty about it, I might decide that him getting his sexual needs met was important enough for me to swallow my insecurities and unhappiness at him getting those needs met elsewhere.
> 
> The prevalent assumption that she used this as a tactic to keep him down is foreign to me. I certainly wouldn't assume that he would say no. And I wouldn't assume that he would stay with me either.
> 
> She makes it pretty clear throughout that post that although she doesn't want it to spell the end of her marriage, she is very well aware that it might indeed do so. She certainly hopes that he can still have friendship and some intimacy with her while she is going through this, but I don't at all get the sense that she expects that it will necessarily happen this way.


OK, let's go back the what she actually wrote...



> The solution to our sexual problems seemed clear. Our libidos don't match anymore. They haven't since I had kids. *I'm not a fake it 'til I make it gal. I hate sex if I'm not in the mood.* My husband's favorite line is, "I just want to have sex with my wife. You're my wife."


This may shock some people, but even as a pretty HD guy, I've had sex with my wife when I wasn't in the mood. And... I didn't hate it.

Wow, I know. 

I've even given her an O when I didn't get one because of whatever reason.

And I still didn't hate it.

Because guess what? 

I love my wife. And I don't mind at all working for her pleasure.



> I've shagged my husband plenty of times when I wasn't in the mood. And you know what? It's repulsive. It's a disgusting feeling. With wine, it feels tolerable.


And here's the problem right here. We have kids. We've been through low drive times because of them.

And guess what? My wife has never said that to me, ever. Never ever. I've even asked her if she has felt this way and not told me... nope. Guilt over not feeling or looking sexy, sure. But not disgusted by me.

Which, of course, is contradicted by her very next statement -- which is a very telling DARVO style. Misdirection.



> In case you're thinking that my husband is a bad bone, let me put that argument to bed right now. When we do have sex, it's off the charts. So don't go there.


So which is it? You're disgusted when you have sex, or not?

Let's get to the heart of it, shall we:


> "I just wish you'd **** someone else. Have a free pass. Don't let me know – just do it. I can't **** you like you need. Just be safe, and don't fall in love."
> 
> My husband looked shocked and hurt.
> 
> "You don't love me anymore," he said, lowering his voice.
> 
> My eyes swelled up, but no tears. I looked down at the ground. Didn't he understand? I offered because I DO love him.
> 
> He looked genuinely crushed.
> 
> "Have you even considered the possible consequences of me ****ing someone else?"


OK. Have you noticed how this conversation was constructed? I hate sex, but it's good when we do it, and...

"Have you even considered the possible consequences?" hangs out there, unanswered. He wasn't asking what the consequences were to herself, neccessarily -- he was also asking of the consequences _to him._ 

Which is unanswered, because it's also part of the DARVO 'dark triad' -- narcissism - which makes his feelings entirely besides the point. What is the point is that she doesn't feel like making an effort any more, _why can't he see that?_ 

_Why can't he see... that I want everything that I want from this marriage -- safety, security, comfort... but don't want to work for it?_

She continues:


> "Yes, I've run it over and over through my mind, I feel like it's the only option to make you – and me – happy. I just feel all of this pressure. Pressure to be a good, hot, skinny, sexy wife who knows how to bone you like a freaky prostitute, and put dinner on the table, and ask you how your day was, and be this loving mother to my kids – oh, and kick ass at my job. It's too much. I just can't take the pressure anymore."


Again, see how she constructs this arguement. 

It's too much pressure to be good. To be hot. To be skinny. To be sexy. To know how to have sex with you. To put dinner on the table. _to care about your day._ To _be a loving mother to my kids_. To be kick ass at my job.

It's just too much. 

So, rather than prioritize like healthy people, lets outsource sex instead. But please stick around.



> "I don't make you feel pressured. I never make you feel pressured to cook or clean."
> 
> This is true. He doesn't. He'd wouldn't flinch if I hired a cleaning company. If I ordered take-out every night. If I was never successful in my career. But my husband does drop hints when he's horny (which is constant), that if I really loved him, I'd want to have sex with him.


So... relieving the pressure elsewhere... just not an option. Why? 

If it's all too much, why not do it?

Because she just doesn't want to have sex with her husband but wants him to stay, that's why. And the easiest way to have that happen is if he is the one that feels bad that she doesn't want to have sex with him instead of her.

She's displacing her guit onto him... because of "the pressure" that isn't really there! Because he would snap his fingers and it would all go away. But she doesn't do it -- because she wants the pressure there because it's a ready made excuse.

And I've never heard a single mother call it pressure to be loving to their kids. I've heard that kids are hard work. Exhausting, no sleep, dirty house, dirty kids, etc, etc, etc...

But that's not what she said. She said specifically that it's hard to be loving.

And there's the truth layered between the lies and manipulation.

And, at the end of the day, she succeeded spectacularly. Not only does she have a publicized post about it, but look at what happens to her marriage:



> However, when that all changes, my husband will be ready when I am, with his free pass in hand – for me.


So... wait until I feel like it, don't ask for it until then, and 'then' may never come.

And feel guilty for it until that day.

Sounds like a pretty sweet deal. For her.


----------



## Buddy400

EleGirl said:


> There is a good chance that she feels like he cannot be bothered with her most of time since he's gone most of the time. It's a real possibility.


If a man posted that he had no desire to talk to his wife, that he was too tired from work, coaching his kids sports teams and training for marathons. That his wife was a wonderful mother and a fine person; that when they used to talk she was a wonderful conversationalist; that he has no complaints about his wife other that that she keeps "dropping hints" that he should talk to her from time to time (which made him feel pressured). That he couldn't understand why talking had to be part of a happy marriage, that she could find another man to talk to and that, after all, he might feel like talking again in 1,2,5 or 25 years.

If THAT post was written, I doubt that you'd have a chorus of men here at TAM inventing possible illnesses on his part or poor behavior on her part to make his story seem reasonable (if you can find a thread where this has happened, please point me to it).

If Elegirl responded with her usual "how much time do you spend together?", I don't think men would be jumping on her saying "What, his kids aren't important?" or "What he shouldn't exercise?" or "He shouldn't work?".

I don't think men would be saying "she should respect your desire to have some quiet time" and "What is it with women, yak, yak, yak, all the time".

So what's up with the select group of women here that will go to whatever extremes necessary to justify her behavior?


----------



## Marduk

EleGirl said:


> I think that she is struggling to fine the words to that will help her husband know that she has no libido to the point of finding sex repulsive. She is struggling to figure out how to deal with this and save her marriage.
> 
> She very well might have been clueless enough to think giving him a hall pass would work until she solved her libido issues, if they ever can be solved.
> 
> I don't know. I've never had an issue with losing libido. But I know that about 40% of all women and 30% of men have sexual dysfunction at some time in their lifetime. For many of them it's not permanent. The chances increase with age.
> 
> I do know that it's hard for the marriages in which this happens. Plus, men choose to make their marriages sexless as often as women do.
> 
> It takes a couple working together to find out what the issues are and to fix them. One person cannot fix them on their own.
> 
> Let's assume for a moment that she is telling the absolute truth. That she has no libido to the point of finding sex repulsive; she's done things from faking it to seeing the doctor and none of it has worked.
> 
> What is she supposed to do now?


"Husband, I feel like I've tried everything and it's not working. I'm repulsed by the thought of having sex with you even though I love and respect you. If you stay, I'll continue to try as hard as I can but I feel like this may never change and I'm holding you in an unhappy situation. But if you want to go, I understand."


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> I am totally serious.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


And I'm totally serious about finding the responses hilarious.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Tall Average Guy said:


> Be honest and not insulting. Not clear how honest she has been with him up to this point, but most men would find her offer of a hall pass to be insulting.
> 
> She should own up to that, lay out her perception of the issue and her (apparent) decision not to do anything more about it. Then see what he says.
> 
> The difficulty is that this looks like the granddaddy of all crap tests. My guess is that he will tell her, at least initial, what he thinks he is supposed to tell her, rather than the truth.


Thank you...


----------



## always_alone

marduk said:


> "Husband, I feel like I've tried everything and it's not working. I'm repulsed by the thought of having sex with you even though I love and respect you. If you stay, I'll continue to try as hard as I can but I feel like this may never change and I'm holding you in an unhappy situation. But if you want to go, I understand."


I'm having a hard time seeing why giving him the option to leave is just fine, but giving him the option to outsource sex is the worst kind of manipulation.


----------



## EleGirl

marduk said:


> "Husband, I feel like I've tried everything and it's not working. I'm repulsed by the thought of having sex with you even though I love and respect you. If you stay, I'll continue to try as hard as I can but I feel like this may never change and I'm holding you in an unhappy situation. But if you want to go, I understand."


We don't know that she has not told him something similar.

In the blog post, she talks about her marriage ending over this. So got the impression that he's already told her that he is leaving. Why else would she talk about her marriage ending over it.

I read what she wrote as her bargaining with her husband for a way for to keep the marriage together. 

I see nothing wrong with her trying to find ways to stay together.

I have read threads here on TAM in which hall passes are discussed. Posters are sometimes told to see if their wife will give them one.


----------



## Tall Average Guy

Buddy400 said:


> So what's up with the select group of women here that will go to whatever extremes necessary to justify her behavior?


I agree that there are a couple of women who never found a marital problem that could not be blamed on the man.

But in my experience, EleGirl is not one of them. I don't always agree with her, but her comments do make me think and look at things from a new perspective.


----------



## Marduk

EleGirl said:


> We don't know that she has not told him something similar.
> 
> In the blog post, she talks about her marriage ending over this. So got the impression that he's already told her that he is leaving. Why else would she talk about her marriage ending over it.
> 
> I read what she wrote as her bargaining with her husband for a way for to keep the marriage together.
> 
> I see nothing wrong with her trying to find ways to stay together.
> 
> I have read threads here on TAM in which hall passes are discussed. Posters are sometimes told to see if their wife will give them one.


Sure, lets add stuff to the arguement that we have zero evidence of that makes her a good person instead of reading what she actually wrote.

Sounds reasonable.


----------



## Marduk

Tall Average Guy said:


> I agree that there are a couple of women who never found a marital problem that could not be blamed on the man.
> 
> But in my experience, EleGirl is not one of them. I don't always agree with her, but her comments do make me think and look at things from a new perspective.


Which is why I'm shocked at her abject defence of her. Usually she's the first one to push for accountability.

As is jld.

Which is why I'm confused as hell and have to laugh about the whole thing.


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> I'm having a hard time seeing why giving him the option to leave is just fine, but giving him the option to outsource sex is the worst kind of manipulation.


Read what she said again. Read what I posted again.

The pressure exists purely by her choice, and it's there for a reason. It's hard for her to care. About him, about the kids.

She says it all herself.

If she said what I said and added... "Husband if I can't give you what you need I'd find a way to live with you having sex elsewhere as long as it stayed just sex... not because I don't want to want to have sex with you, but because I don't want to hold you back from a fulfilled life because I love you."

Different story. I'd say the same to my wife. 

Setting it up so she feels guilty that I don't want to have sex with her in a passive-aggressive way expecting her to say no...

Just would lock her into a sexless relationship, a cycle of guilt, and a pretty ****ty life. Of course, there would be an upside...

You know, that I wouldn't have to work or feel bad about anything.


----------



## Fozzy

Keep arguing. When this thread hits a thousand posts I'm having a beer.


----------



## always_alone

marduk said:


> This may shock some people, but even as a pretty HD guy, I've had sex with my wife when I wasn't in the mood. And... I didn't hate it.
> 
> Wow, I know.


So because she doesn't feel the same way you do, she is clearly just manipulating? 

I'm sorry, marduk, but I kind of agree with jld that your interpretations seem a bit paranoid. The blogger never said that she was disgusted by her husband, just that she was disgusted by the sex. Not because he is bad, but because she didn't want it.

Having felt this way myself at times, I find it pretty easy to understand why having sex when you don't want it feels pretty icky. 

And she does answer the question about the possible consequences: 



> I found my voice after getting choked up.
> 
> "Yes, I've run it over and over through my mind, I feel like it's the only option to make you – and me – happy. I just feel all of this pressure.


She is perfectly well aware of the consequences, but she *feels like it is the only option*.

And you can discount the pressure she is feeling all you want, but the fact remains that he isn't going to make it all go away just because he gets take out or hires a maid. That will take away a few of the tasks she has to complete, but not the pressure she is under to conform to a certain way of being.

And, quite frankly, after participating in this thread, I can see how excruciating that pressure must be, given that any sort of deviance from how one is "supposed" to feel and act immediately turns one into worst woman in the world.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Fozzy said:


> Keep arguing. When this thread hits a thousand posts I'm having a beer.


:rofl:

:toast:

I'll join you!


----------



## Marduk

Is it pressure to love your children?

Is it pressure to care about your husband's day?


----------



## ocotillo

EleGirl said:


> Let's assume for a moment that she is telling the absolute truth. That she has no libido to the point of finding sex repulsive; she's done things from faking it to seeing the doctor and none of it has worked.
> 
> What is she supposed to do now?



I would say that sex or no sex, she needs to understand that other peoples perspectives are not invalidated by her refusal to believe them.

To wit:



> "I don't think you can equate the two. Love and sex. I don't care how much pyscho-babble you've had shoved down your throat."


If she had understood that this is not simply pyscho-babble, she would never have offered her husband a free pass and we would not be having this conversation.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

always_alone said:


> So because she doesn't feel the same way you do, she is clearly just manipulating?
> 
> I'm sorry, marduk, but I kind of agree with jld that your interpretations seem a bit paranoid. The blogger never said that she was disgusted by her husband, just that she was disgusted by the sex. Not because he is bad, but because she didn't want it.
> 
> Having felt this way myself at times, I find it pretty easy to understand why having sex when you don't want it feels pretty icky.
> 
> And she does answer the question about the possible consequences:
> 
> 
> 
> She is perfectly well aware of the consequences, but she *feels like it is the only option*.
> 
> And you can discount the pressure she is feeling all you want, but the fact remains that he isn't going to make it all go away just because he gets take out or hires a maid. That will take away a few of the tasks she has to complete, but not the pressure she is under to conform to a certain way of being.
> 
> And, quite frankly, after participating in this thread, I can see how excruciating that pressure must be, given that any sort of deviance from how one is "supposed" to feel and act immediately turns one into worst woman in the world.


Oh please... no one is saying she is the worst woman in the world.

There are many of us that would take her to task first and call BS on her whining when there are some things she can fix first.

Last time I checked accountability is a beautiful thing.


----------



## always_alone

marduk said:


> Read what she said again. Read what I posted again.
> 
> The pressure exists purely by her choice, and it's there for a reason. It's hard for her to care. About him, about the kids.
> 
> She says it all herself.
> 
> If she said what I said and added... "Husband if I can't give you what you need I'd find a way to live with you having sex elsewhere as long as it stayed just sex... not because I don't want to want to have sex with you, but because I don't want to hold you back from a fulfilled life because I love you."
> 
> Different story. I'd say the same to my wife.
> 
> Setting it up so she feels guilty that I don't want to have sex with her in a passive-aggressive way expecting her to say no...
> 
> Just would lock her into a sexless relationship, a cycle of guilt, and a pretty ****ty life. Of course, there would be an upside...
> 
> You know, that I wouldn't have to work or feel bad about anything.


I don't see her saying anything about not loving her husband. Indeed she says she does, and that she will eventually get back on track. 

And what she said is basically what you just said. What's the difference? She tells him she loves him, and she sees that as the only option to make them both happy. Now clearly she's assuming that they both want to stay together, which may not be true -- but she also recognizes pretty explicitly that it could spell the end of her marriage. 

The point is that she is not *trying* to lock him into a sexless marriage. She is trying to give him a way out. 

Thankfully, it would seem that he didn't get anywhere near as upset about it as the posters here.


----------



## samyeagar

always_alone said:


> I can't see the manipulation either. I mean, if I didn't want to have sex, I wouldn't, you know, want to have sex.
> 
> If I knew I was depriving my husband, I'd feel bad about it. I would try certain things to get that mojo back -- exactly as she did.
> 
> *If I was at enough of a loss, and felt guilty about it, I might decide that him getting his sexual needs met was important enough for me to swallow my insecurities and unhappiness at him getting those needs met elsewhere. *
> 
> The prevalent assumption that she used this as a tactic to keep him down is foreign to me. I certainly wouldn't assume that he would say no. And I wouldn't assume that he would stay with me either.
> 
> She makes it pretty clear throughout that post that although she doesn't want it to spell the end of her marriage, she is very well aware that it might indeed do so. She certainly hopes that he can still have friendship and some intimacy with her while she is going through this, but I don't at all get the sense that she expects that it will necessarily happen this way.


This right here is what would absolutely destroy things for me if my wife suggested I find someone else. It presupposes that all I am in need of is the physical release.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

FrenchFry said:


> This is exactly why Scary Mommy and all the bad mom blogs have popped up. I'm telling you. No offense BL but calling her husband MFer is funny... he is one.


I find it classless to call your soul mate a m'fer

And not by her original post.... she would disagree with you


----------



## Marduk

Blossom Leigh said:


> Oh please... no one is saying she is the worst woman in the world.
> 
> There are many of us that would take her to task first and call BS on her whining when there are some things she can fix first.
> 
> Last time I checked accountability is a beautiful thing.


I said she was self-centered and lazy.

And while not quite the worst woman in the world, she could see Sarah Palin's house from there.

Not because of what she did to her husband. People screw with the heads of those they "love" every day.

It's because she celebrates it and encourages other women to do the same that I have such a hard time about it.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

FrenchFry said:


> My soulmate Fs me. I am a mother.
> 
> Classless but true.


:rofl:

Good one...

now see French... there hasn't been one post on this site you've posted that I have ever made me not like you. 

I have no beef with you whatsoever


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> I don't see her saying anything about not loving her husband. Indeed she says she does, and that she will eventually get back on track.


I didn't say that she didn't love her husband.

I just think she loves her laziness more.


> And what she said is basically what you just said. What's the difference? She tells him she loves him, and she sees that as the only option to make them both happy. Now clearly she's assuming that they both want to stay together, which may not be true -- but she also recognizes pretty explicitly that it could spell the end of her marriage.


Then you and I live on different planets. 

That wasn't all she said. 

She said her life is too much pressure, including having to care about his day or love her children.

And when he offered to take away all the other pressure, she said no.

Why would she do that?

Because it suits her, that's why. 


> The point is that she is not *trying* to lock him into a sexless marriage. She is trying to give him a way out.
> 
> Thankfully, it would seem that he didn't get anywhere near as upset about it as the posters here.


I guarantee that dude is pretty busted up inside, but to terrified to do anything about it. Look at his reaction.

It was one giant "yes dear" and "happy wife, happy life."


----------



## Tall Average Guy

marduk said:


> Which is why I'm shocked at her abject defence of her. Usually she's the first one to push for accountability.
> 
> As is jld.
> 
> Which is why I'm confused as hell and have to laugh about the whole thing.


Your experience with jld is quite different than mine.


----------



## Marduk

Tall Average Guy said:


> Your experience with jld is quite different than mine.


Just because she comes at it from a different angle (with the husband taking more overt accountability) doesn't mean it's not there.


----------



## always_alone

ocotillo said:


> If she had understood that this is not simply pyscho-babble, she would never have offered her husband a free pass and we would not be having this conversation.


I dunno, ocotillo. The more I read the objections and protestations, the more I think the issue really is "just sex."

Her needs count for nothing, her request to have a sex sabbatical makes her evil and selfish, her desire to not have sex means there's something wrong with her that she has to fix. All of the opprobrium is all based on the simple fact that her husband isn't getting enough sexual release.

And we're to believe that she doesn't love him because she lost her libido?


----------



## Tall Average Guy

always_alone said:


> And you can discount the pressure she is feeling all you want, but the fact remains that he isn't going to make it all go away just because he gets take out or hires a maid. That will take away a few of the tasks she has to complete, but not the pressure she is under to conform to a certain way of being.
> 
> And, quite frankly, after participating in this thread, I can see how excruciating that pressure must be, given that any sort of deviance from how one is "supposed" to feel and act immediately turns one into worst woman in the world.


I am confused by this. In her own words, the pressure is not due to him. It appears to be from others as well as herself.

Yet he is the one she is shutting out. Why is that?


----------



## Tall Average Guy

FrenchFry said:


> My soulmate Fs me. I am a mother.
> 
> Classless but true.


But since she won't have sex with her husband, this interpretation clearly is incorrect (unless of course he took her up on the hall pass and found a mother to have coitus with).


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> I dunno, ocotillo. The more I read the objections and protestations, the more I think the issue really is "just sex."
> 
> Her needs count for nothing, her request to have a sex sabbatical makes her evil and selfish, her desire to not have sex means there's something wrong with her that she has to fix. All of the opprobrium is all based on the simple fact that her husband isn't getting enough sexual release.
> 
> And we're to believe that she doesn't love him because she lost her libido?


Again, if you're attempting to represent what I'm saying you have it dead wrong A_A.

She never asked for a sex sabbatical.

I never faulted her for not wanting to have sex with her husband. 

I faulted her for not wanting to work on it any more, and pointed out consistencies in this attitude with other narcissistic behaviours.

I never said she didn't love him.

Why do you keep throwing strawmen arguements out there that haven't been said, and aren't even in what she wrote?

Honestly, I get the sense you and elegirl and jld think she's just a misunderstood saint.


----------



## Marduk

Tall Average Guy said:


> I am confused by this. In her own words, the pressure is not due to him. It appears to be from others as well as herself.
> 
> Yet he is the one she is shutting out. Why is that?


_exactly._


----------



## Tall Average Guy

marduk said:


> Just because she comes at it from a different angle (with the husband taking more overt accountability) doesn't mean it's not there.


Well, I agree that she certainly believes in accountability for husbands.


----------



## T&T

always_alone said:


> that her husband isn't getting enough *sexual release.*


Ugh, when written like that it sounds so dirty...Any man can get a "release" on his own.

It's *way* more than that and I don't think some women really understand how close it brings us to our wives. 

I don't really think it can be explained in written words. Impossible. :|


----------



## Tall Average Guy

I would add that her big problem is she has replaced intimacy with her husband with intimacy with others, including her children.

I don't know why that occurred, but I suspect it is at least some combination of being a super mom, her career, his traveling and her blog. She is communicating through her actions what is now important to her. It might be fixable, but it is not clear that in her current frame of mind, she wants to fix it.


----------



## always_alone

marduk said:


> Honestly, I get the sense you and elegirl and jld think she's just a misunderstood saint.


Hardly. I just don't understand why there's such a huge hate-on for her. She has some feelings, she writes about them, and she's totally vilified.

And the fact is she is working on them: she's gone to the doctor, she's tried fake it til you make it, she feels terrible about not feeling the way she is supposed to, and is thinking of ways to solve it, to keep everyone happy. 

Obviously, she's failing in that last goal, but I don't see why his needs or feelings should automatically trump hers, or why the efforts she has put in are to be totally discounted because his feelings got hurt.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

always_alone said:


> Hardly. I just don't understand why there's such a huge hate-on for her. She has some feelings, she writes about them, and she's totally vilified.
> 
> And the fact is she is working on them: she's gone to the doctor, she's tried fake it til you make it, she feels terrible about not feeling the way she is supposed to, and is thinking of ways to solve it, to keep everyone happy.
> 
> Obviously, she's failing in that last goal, but I don't see why his needs or feelings should automatically trump hers, or why the efforts she has put in are to be totally discounted because his feelings got hurt.


No one here hates her, but there are strong feelings because she is not addressing her part of the problem, while blame shifting to her husband and injuring him in the process.


----------



## always_alone

Tall Average Guy said:


> I am confused by this. In her own words, the pressure is not due to him. It appears to be from others as well as herself.
> 
> Yet he is the one she is shutting out. Why is that?


Because she's lost her libido, because having sex because she's "supposed" to makes her feel icky, and because all of the pressure to be sexual is making her feel even more like a failure and even less sexual.

Why is this so hard to understand?


----------



## Blossom Leigh

FrenchFry said:


> :grin2: I have no beef with you either. I can see how easily though how we are as individuals can color how we see things.
> 
> Like marduk talking about laziness right now? My husband called me lazy almost every other day while I was depressed and struggling with new motherhood. I'm not a natural mom, like the author I was blindsided by pregnancy and by the total derailment of what I thought my future would be. It's taken at least this long for me to not be totally mad about my life and instead find enjoyment.
> 
> I did the opposite of this woman and told my husband to go F himself--not find someone else to F but the sentiment was the same.
> 
> So I feel like I like her more and am willing to give her leeway. Anyone who has has something hurtful thrown at them like this will probably identify with the husband more. Or their personalities mesh better.


Sure I can too. But yours was depression... that has more leeway in my book.

I see hers as pissy attitude, not cool in my book.

He offered help to help her with her fatigue and she refuses it. Why... If you arent going to accept help, dont piss and moan about it.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

always_alone said:


> Because she's lost her libido, because having sex because she's "supposed" to makes her feel icky, and because all of the pressure to be sexual is making her feel even more like a failure and even less sexual.
> 
> Why is this so hard to understand?


She lost her "hyper" libido

and she is exhausted yet refuses help

leaving him with nothing to work with


----------



## always_alone

Blossom Leigh said:


> No one here hates her, but there are strong feelings because she is not addressing her part of the problem, while blame shifting to her husband and injuring him in the process.


But she's done everything she can think of and is but asking for some time to focus on something else for a bit. 

What is so wrong and terrible about that? 

She is not at all blame-shifting, notice she doesn't say anything bad about her husband at all -- and despite what other posters say, I really don't think it's fair to say she is trying to hurt him. 

I dunno. The only way it makes sense to me is if I decide to agree that her needs and feelings don't matter a whit, and it's all about whether his libido is satisfied.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

always_alone said:


> But she's done everything she can think of and is but asking for some time to focus on something else for a bit.
> 
> What is so wrong and terrible about that?
> 
> She is not at all blame-shifting, notice she doesn't say anything bad about her husband at all -- and despite what other posters say, I really don't think it's fair to say she is trying to hurt him.
> 
> I dunno. The only way it makes sense to me is if I decide to agree that her needs and feelings don't matter a whit, and it's all about whether his libido is satisfied.


She has not done everything she can think of (nor has he by the way) and even mentions the help she refused herself. It is unwise of her refuse the help since she clearly is conscious of her fatigue level. 

You would have to dig into her blogs to see some of what she does say about her H that makes me question her loyalty to him.

Asking for time to focus on the kids is great.

But not caring about leaving your spouse sexless for two to five years and to the degree that you would rather pass them onto someone else is irresponsible prior to exhausting all attempts.


----------



## EleGirl

Buddy400 said:


> So what's up with the select group of women here that will go to whatever extremes necessary to justify her behavior?


This thread has been many pages of ripping apart and name calling a woman that no one even knows. Some were even using blog posts by other authors to trash this woman. Those who are trashing her seem to believe that they know her very inner thoughts and motivations. 

She’s not here to defend herself and/or answer questions. So some of us decided to come on here and to provide different perspectives in her defense. Those who are giving alternative perspectives are not assuming that they know her thoughts and motivations but instead offering different viewpoints. 

No one here has invented illnesses for her. She talks about her health problems on her blog. She has several blog posts about her husband being gone for weeks at a time. She also hints at her concerns that he can easily cheat. There is a lot more going on here than her being a cold, heartless b!tch.

I know that not agreeing with the crowd is not PC, but oh well.


----------



## always_alone

T&T said:


> Ugh, when written like that it sounds so dirty...Any man can get a "release" on his own.
> 
> It's *way* more than that and I don't think some women really understand how close it brings us to our wives.
> 
> I don't really think it can be explained in written words. Impossible. :|


Well it's a lovely sentiment, but does it still bring you closer to your wives when all it's doing is driving her away?

Earlier in this thread I wrote of a feeling of disconnect with my SO when we have sex. We still have sex, which for some reason makes me infinitely superior to this blogger for reasons that I still don't understand, but it in no way brings us closer together. He doesn't even notice whether I'm into it or not. I could be faking, thinking of Queen, any number of things, and he would be completely and totally unaware. 

So, given that, should we say that as long as the blogger does her duty and fakes it, all is well? He can feel "closer" to his wife? Truly express his love for her?

At that point, I'm afraid I'm inclined to see it as little more than sexual release.


----------



## EleGirl

marduk said:


> Sure, lets add stuff to the arguement that we have zero evidence of that makes her a good person instead of reading what she actually wrote.
> 
> Sounds reasonable.


Using one article as THE complete source of judging a person and her situation is not reasonable either. The things that I have brought up are in her blog and other things that I have read that she has written on the internet.

However, even after reading a lot of what she has posted in her blog and elsewhere on the net, I not presume to know what conversations she has had with her husband.

Perhaps someone could go to her blog and ask her to post here so that she can actually defend herself.


----------



## T&T

always_alone said:


> Well it's a lovely sentiment, but does it still bring you closer to your wives when all it's doing is driving her away?
> 
> Earlier in this thread I wrote of a feeling of disconnect with my SO when we have sex. We still have sex, which for some reason makes me infinitely superior to this blogger for reasons that I still don't understand, but it in no way brings us closer together. He doesn't even notice whether I'm into it or not. I could be faking, thinking of Queen, any number of things, and he would be completely and totally unaware.
> 
> So, given that, should we say that as long as the blogger does her duty and fakes it, all is well? He can feel "closer" to his wife? Truly express his love for her?
> 
> At that point, I'm afraid I'm inclined to see it as little more than sexual release.


Fair enough AA. 

Let me reword that to say it brings most men closer to their wives. Better? I can't explain it in words really. But, I know how I feel towards her! It's like being on cloud 9 permanently. I think about her constantly! 

Sorry to hear about your disconnect. It sucks AA! Have you told him how you _really_ feel? 

We've been there too and are now back from that black hole.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

FrenchFry said:


> Depression has many manifestations. When I first came here I was deep in it and I didn't get any advice to go see a doctor for it because I was mostly confused and hostile.
> 
> To be clear, *I think this woman went about telling her husband how she felt the wrong way*. I don't see the evil and I like her personality because--well for example the MFer thing.


I've been there too, just not with depression, so I get it.

And agreed on her going about it the wrong way.

We can disagree on her character for now. :nerd:


----------



## EleGirl

marduk said:


> Which is why I'm shocked at her abject defence of her. Usually she's the first one to push for accountability.
> 
> As is jld.
> 
> Which is why I'm confused as hell and have to laugh about the whole thing.


If the author were here I'd ask her a lot of question to get to the bottom of what is going on. And yes, I'd push for her to be accountable for her part of her marriage. 

But she's not here, she cannot defend herself and we know next to nothing about what is going on.

What has happened on this thread is people building a one dimensional image of her based on very little info.

So some of us just wanted to add some other dimensions.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

EleGirl said:


> This thread has been many pages of ripping apart and name calling a woman that no one even knows. *Some were even using blog posts by other authors to trash this woman*. Those who are trashing her seem to believe that they know her very inner thoughts and motivations.
> 
> She’s not here to defend herself and/or answer questions. So some of us decided to come on here and to provide different perspectives in her defense. Those who are giving alternative perspectives are not assuming that they know her thoughts and motivations but instead offering different viewpoints.
> 
> No one here has invented illnesses for her. She talks about her health problems on her blog. She has several blog posts about her husband being gone for weeks at a time. She also hints at her concerns that he can easily cheat. There is a lot more going on here than her being a cold, heartless b!tch.
> 
> I know that not agreeing with the crowd is not PC, but oh well.


That was not intentional by marduk.

She chose put her words and thoughts out there for the world to see, what's wrong with taking her to task over them? Invite her here, I would like to have a word with her.


----------



## EllisRedding

Blossom Leigh said:


> That was not intentional by marduk.
> 
> She chose put her words and thoughts out there for the world to see, what's wrong with taking her to task over them? * Invite her here, I would like to have a word with her.*


Lol, :2gunsfiring_v1::gun::redcard:


----------



## Blossom Leigh

EleGirl said:


> If the author were here I'd ask her a lot of question to get to the bottom of what is going on. And yes, I'd push for her to be accountable for her part of her marriage.
> 
> But she's not here, she cannot defend herself and we know next to nothing about what is going on.
> 
> What has happened on this thread is people building a one dimensional image of her based on very little info.
> 
> So some of us just wanted to add some other dimensions.


This is a very fair post.

And to be clear there are MANY assumptions on all sides offered here not just one or the other.


----------



## jld

EleGirl said:


> Using one article as THE complete source of judging a person and her situation is not reasonable either. The things that I have brought up are in her blog and other things that I have read that she has written on the internet.
> 
> However, even after reading a lot of what she has posted in her blog and elsewhere on the net, I not presume to know what conversations she has had with her husband.
> 
> Perhaps someone could go to her blog and ask her to post here so that she can actually defend herself.


Great idea, Ele. Very fair-minded.

Maybe Fozzy, since he started the thread?


----------



## Blossom Leigh

EllisRedding said:


> Lol, :2gunsfiring_v1::gun::redcard:


LOL I've been fiesty today can you tell... I even wrote jld and expressed how I am failing miserably today in my grace and mercy. 

What's my excuse right?

LOL


----------



## Blossom Leigh

jld said:


> Great idea, Ele. Very fair-minded.
> 
> Maybe Fozzy, since he started the thread?


Hell, I'll do it ... I ain't skeerd


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Blossom Leigh said:


> Hell, I'll do it ... I ain't skeerd


There... sent


----------



## EleGirl

FrenchFry said:


> This is exactly why Scary Mommy and all the bad mom blogs have popped up. I'm telling you. No offense BL but calling her husband MFer is funny... he is one.


I learn something new ever day.... I had no idea that bad mom blogs were a thing.


----------



## jld

Blossom Leigh said:


> Hell, I'll do it ... I ain't skeerd


Lol, Blossom. Just be gentle with her, okay?


----------



## jld

EleGirl said:


> I learn something new ever day.... I had no idea that bad mom blogs were a thing.


Yeah, me neither.

I was a mom for several years before we had internet. Gosh, those were lonely days.


----------



## Cosmos

EleGirl said:


> This thread has been many pages of ripping apart and name calling a woman that no one even knows. Some were even using blog posts by other authors to trash this woman. Those who are trashing her seem to believe that they know her very inner thoughts and motivations.
> 
> She’s not here to defend herself and/or answer questions. So some of us decided to come on here and to provide different perspectives in her defense. Those who are giving alternative perspectives are not assuming that they know her thoughts and motivations but instead offering different viewpoints.
> 
> No one here has invented illnesses for her. She talks about her health problems on her blog. She has several blog posts about her husband being gone for weeks at a time. She also hints at her concerns that he can easily cheat. There is a lot more going on here than her being a cold, heartless b!tch.
> 
> I know that not agreeing with the crowd is not PC, but oh well.


I agree.

It isn't a case of defending or condoning the fact that she's created a sexless marriage, or what she said to her H, but there's definitely more going on here, IMO, than a woman wilfully and selfishly withholding sex from her H.

Let's face it, it isn't normal for someone who loves their partner to go from a wild and woolly sex life to finding sex "repulsive." Something has happened here, be it sexual dysfunction after giving birth or something we don't know about.

I hope she and her H manage to sort things out.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

jld said:


> Lol, Blossom. Just be gentle with her, okay?


LOL... I was fiesty and vented about it today.. I will do my best to behave. 0

I've definitely got a fiesty side if y'all haven't figured that out by now... lol

SOMETIMES it works against me, but sometimes it serves me very well >


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Only 122 posts till :toast: time!


----------



## EleGirl

Tall Average Guy said:


> I am confused by this. In her own words, the pressure is not due to him. It appears to be from others as well as herself.
> 
> Yet he is the one she is shutting out. Why is that?


I think that he below quote is her talking about the pressure she has from him on the sexual front.

"But my husband does drop hints when he's horny (which is constant), that if I really loved him, I'd want to have sex with him."

On all other fronts, she's mostly on her own with little support from him based on his travel schedule. That might be part of her frustration. I'll ask her about is as soon as she shows up here . >


----------



## T&T

Blossom Leigh said:


> Only 122 posts till :toast: time!


1.


----------



## T&T

Blossom Leigh said:


> Only 122 posts till :toast: time!


2...


----------



## T&T

Blossom Leigh said:


> Only 122 posts till :toast: time!



3.....


----------



## EleGirl

marduk said:


> Honestly, I get the sense you and elegirl and jld think she's just a misunderstood saint.


Nope, that is not what I have posted. What I have posted is that there is most likely more the story that is written in that one blog post. There are, most likely, a lot of things that have lead to the place they are at. And calling her names is not going to help them solve a thing.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

EleGirl said:


> I think that he below quote is her talking about the pressure she has from him on the sexual front.
> 
> "But my husband does drop hints when he's horny (which is constant), that if I really loved him, I'd want to have sex with him."
> 
> On all other fronts, she's mostly on her own with little support from him based on his travel schedule. That might be part of her frustration. I'll ask her about is as soon as she shows up here . >


I poked a hole in this earlier when I said ...

how can he hint all the time when he is gone all the time...

doesn't add up to me.


----------



## EleGirl

Blossom Leigh said:


> Sure I can too. But yours was depression... that has more leeway in my book.
> 
> I see hers as pissy attitude, not cool in my book.


I would not be so sure that the author is not depressed. She is overwhelmed and it's not clear why. That's often a sign of depression.



Blossom Leigh said:


> He offered help to help her with her fatigue and she refuses it. Why... If you arent going to accept help, dont piss and moan about it.


I cannot find anywhere in the article where he offered to help her.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

EleGirl said:


> I would not be so sure that the author is not depressed. She is overwhelmed and it's not clear why. That's often a sign of depression.
> 
> *Maybe... and sometimes it is poor time management or not enough boundaries on family/husband time.*
> 
> 
> 
> I cannot find anywhere in the article where he offered to help her.


She knows he is fully supportive of getting the help she needs...

I just feel all of this pressure. Pressure to be a good, hot, skinny, sexy wife who knows how to bone you like a freaky prostitute, and put dinner on the table, and ask you how your day was, and be this loving mother to my kids – oh, and kick ass at my job. It's too much. I just can't take the pressure anymore."

"*I don't make you feel pressured*. *I never make you feel pressured to cook or clean."*

*This is true. He doesn't*. *He'd wouldn't flinch if I hired a cleaning company. If I ordered take-out every night. If I was never successful in my career.*


----------



## EleGirl

T&T said:


> Fair enough AA.
> 
> Let me reword that to say it brings most men closer to their wives. Better? I can't explain it in words really. But, I know how I feel towards her! It's like being on cloud 9 permanently. I think about her constantly!
> 
> Sorry to hear about your disconnect. It sucks AA! Have you told him how you _really_ feel?
> 
> We've been there too and are now back from that black hole.


I think that most women can understand that sex makes a man feel closer to their wife. Why? Because it does the exact same thing for a woman... it makes her feel closer to her husband.

But for a person, male or female, who has lost their libido, I don't think it works that way. (I have never lost my libido.) What I have been told by people, male and female, who have lost their libido is that it no longer makes them feel closer and loved. Instead sex often becomes a pressure and turns them away. They are not evil for being like this. It just is.


----------



## EleGirl

jld said:


> Great idea, Ele. Very fair-minded.
> 
> Maybe Fozzy, since he started the thread?


Yep this is all Fozzy's fault!!! Shame on him..... >


----------



## EleGirl

Blossom Leigh said:


> Only 122 posts till :toast: time!


So that is what this is all about.. beer? Should have known. Well you call don't get free beer. You will have to buy your own.. >


----------



## Buddy400

EleGirl said:


> No one here has invented illnesses for her. She talks about her health problems on her blog. She has several blog posts about her husband being gone for weeks at a time. She also hints at her concerns that he can easily cheat. There is a lot more going on here than her being a cold, heartless b!tch.


You haven't invented an illness, but you've attributed her loss of libido to it. She didn't. She didn't even talk about it in the post being discussed.

She hasn't complained about her husband being gone for weeks at a time, certainly not in the post in question. She didn't blame it for her loss of libido, you did.

She believes that her husband is desirable enough that he could easily cheat, but she never says that he would. He wouldn't, even refusing to when given a permission.


----------



## EleGirl

Blossom Leigh said:


> I poked a hole in this earlier when I said ...
> 
> how can he hint all the time when he is gone all the time...
> 
> doesn't add up to me.


All the time when he's at home.

She talks about Skype and other ways to keep in touch when he's traveling. It reasonable to think that he's hinting at those times as well.


----------



## EleGirl

Buddy400 said:


> You haven't invented an illness, but you've attributed her loss of libido to it. She didn't. She didn't even talk about it in the post being discussed.
> 
> She hasn't complained about her husband being gone for weeks at a time, certainly not in the post in question. She didn't blame it for her loss of libido, you did.


It is reasonable to assume that the one post posted to in the OP does not describe her entire life and all that is contributing to her low libido and lack of desire for sex.

When she gets here, we can actually ask her to flesh out the story.



Buddy400 said:


> She believes that her husband is desirable enough that he could easily cheat, but she never says that he would. He wouldn't, even refusing to when given a permission.


Now he might be a saint. He did decline the offer for an open marriage for him. 

But, him refusing it does not prove much to me. I know of people who cheated and who always knew the right thing to say to their spouse. 

I do not know enough about her husband to have an opinion of him one way or the other.


----------



## EleGirl

Blossom Leigh said:


> She knows he is fully supportive of getting the help she needs...
> 
> I just feel all of this pressure. Pressure to be a good, hot, skinny, sexy wife who knows how to bone you like a freaky prostitute, and put dinner on the table, and ask you how your day was, and be this loving mother to my kids – oh, and kick ass at my job. It's too much. I just can't take the pressure anymore."
> 
> "*I don't make you feel pressured*. *I never make you feel pressured to cook or clean."*
> 
> *This is true. He doesn't*. *He'd wouldn't flinch if I hired a cleaning company. If I ordered take-out every night. If I was never successful in my career.*


Either she has not come to a point where she realizes that things like a cleaning service will help her regain her libido, or she knows that's not the problem. We can ask her when she shows up.

Of course once she starts reading this thread she will most likely run for the hills. 

Unless she's Joan of Arc and shows up on battle armor. But we all know how that ends. With her burned at a stake. 

I would be very impressed with Sarah if she did actually post her after this huge attack on her.


----------



## Buddy400

EleGirl said:


> It is reasonable to assume that the one post posted to in the OP does not describe her entire life and all that is contributing to her low libido and lack of desire for sex.
> 
> When she gets here, we can actually ask her to flesh out the story.
> 
> 
> 
> Now he might be a saint. He did decline the offer for an open marriage for him.
> 
> But, him refusing it does not prove much to me. I know of people who cheated and who always knew the right thing to say to their spouse.
> 
> I do not know enough about her husband to have an opinion of him one way or the other.


I'd missed the last several pages when everyone seemed to be starting to make nice. If the fire's starting to burn out, I won't add any more kindling to it.


----------



## Cosmos

This blog tells us quite a lot. I get a deep sense of loneliness and a fair amount of resentment.

The 20 Thoughts Moms Have When Their Husbands Are Away On Business - Scary Mommy


----------



## Blossom Leigh

EleGirl said:


> Either she has not come to a point where she realizes that things like a cleaning service will help her regain her libido, or she knows that's not the problem. We can ask her when she shows up.
> 
> Of course once she starts reading this thread she will most likely run for the hills.
> 
> Unless she's Joan of Arc and shows up on battle armor. But we all know how that ends. With her burned at a stake.
> 
> I would be very impressed with Sarah if she did actually post her after this huge attack on her.


Ahhhh, as rowdy as she is I wouldn't be surprised at all if she's thick skinned and gives us a run for our money.


----------



## T&T

EleGirl said:


> I think that most women can understand that sex makes a man feel closer to their wife. Why? Because it does the exact same thing for a woman... it makes her feel closer to her husband.


I can't speak for all men but I'm not sure if it's on the same level, Ele. My wife bonds with me doing plenty of other things that don't necessarily do it for me. But, I've learned and am there for her because I know it's important to her. 



> But for a person, male or female, who has lost their libido, I don't think it works that way. (I have never lost my libido.) What I have been told by people, male and female, who have lost their libido is that it no longer makes them feel closer and loved. Instead sex often becomes a pressure and turns them away. They are not evil for being like this. It just is.


A person who had a libido would normally strive to get it back, assuming things were good. Never having a libido would be a different story. 

That's not my beef with the blogger though. It's the blog in itself. The "hall pass" Writing about this on the internet for everyone to see and degrading her husband even further. I think it's disgusting...


----------



## EleGirl

T&T said:


> I can't speak for all men but I'm not sure if it's on the same level, Ele.


I and many women will agree that in a marriage that sex is extremely important to bonding with our husband. 

There is no way for us to know exactly what the other gender gets from sex. However, research is showing that men and women get different feelings/emotions from sex. With orgasm, women get a flush of oxytocin, the bonding hormone. This bonds them more strongly to their partner and makes them feel a strong love attachment. Women’s brains produce 7-12 times as much oxytocin than mens do during sex.

When a man has an orgasm, the main hormone released is dopamine — the pleasure hormone.. not oxytocin.

So yes, there is a difference in what the genders get/feel from sex. Women feel much more bonded by sex. Men feel more pleasure.



T&T said:


> My wife bonds with me doing plenty of other things that don't necessarily do it for me. But, I've learned and am there for her because I know it's important to her.


Women bonding from many other things does not discount that women get a huge surge of oxytocin from sex and there for bond strongly from sex.

But women’s brains also produce oxytocin in smaller amounts from other things, such as non-sexual intimacy. This is why women want non-sexual intimacy... but cause it’s like a mini-does of what we get form sex.

Another aspect of this is that if a woman’s oxytocin levels get too low, she will not want sex. If they get really low she will not even want to be touch, hugged or kissed.

While your wife bonds with all kinds of things that do nothing for you, I doubt that you would continue to feel bonded to your wife if you only saw her went you wanted sex. Over time your bond to her would probably fade. So there are obviously other things that bond you to her besides sex.



T&T said:


> A person who had a libido would normally strive to get it back, assuming things were good. Never having a libido would be a different story.


The author said that she used to have a strong libido and has tried to get it back. Her body seems to be on its own time table and so far is out of her control.


T&T said:


> That's not my beef with the blogger though. It's the blog in itself. The "hall pass" Writing about this on the internet for everyone to see and degrading her husband even further. I think it's disgusting...


I’ve wondered about that… did she clear it with her husband. Who knows? Another question to ask when she shows up on TAM.


Read more: Sex: Why it makes women fall in love - but just makes men want MORE! | Daily Mail Online


----------



## morituri

Blossom Leigh said:


> She had hormone levels checked and they were normal.


Not much as far as details regarding what kind of tests she had done on her.

As I observed before, what is she going to do if one day she gets her libido back and her husband won't or isn't able to satisfy her? Will she still be singing the same tune about how a sexless marriage is no reason to end it?


----------



## Wazza

There's blame, there's cause, and it can sometimes be hard to separate them, but they are different.

Should the blogger be blamed? I don't think so.

Is she causing some of the problems? I think yes TO SOME EXTENT (not totally), for reasons I wrote earlier in the thread. Obviously there is more to the story, and obviously the husband would be well advised to be sensitive and supportive, not confrontational, as much as possible. And I agree there might be depression or other factors at play. 

The fact is, that she wants to shut down sex (taking her words at face value) and yet wants a long term relationship with her husband. Those two goals are probably diametrically opposed, and they are coming from her.

The related fact is she talks about her long to-do list and where her husband sits on it. That can be due to a whole lot of things, many of them understandable, and its a mistake many of us make in different ways at different times. But its also a lever under her control that she is not pulling, at least not in a way that helps the marriage. I'm interested in helping her, or others with the same issue who are reading this thread, to recognize an option. 

One of the interesting things in this thread is the number of people who have related it to issues in their marriage (and I'm no different) but I don't think there is anyone who said "Yeah we have no sex life and we are happy". It all seems to be people who never had the problem, who had it and worked through it or are working through it, or who have split up over it. Food for thought.


----------



## Marduk

EleGirl said:


> Nope, that is not what I have posted. What I have posted is that there is most likely more the story that is written in that one blog post. There are, most likely, a lot of things that have lead to the place they are at. And calling her names is not going to help them solve a thing.


If this is true, why does she celebrate her decision publically?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## EleGirl

Wazza said:


> One of the interesting things in this thread is the number of people who have related it to issues in their marriage (and I'm no different) but I don't think there is anyone who said "Yeah we have no sex life and we are happy". *It all seems to be people who never had the problem, who had it and worked through it or are working through it, or who have split up over it. Food for thought*.


I suppose the only other option is someone who has the problem and is spinning their wheels.


----------



## EleGirl

EleGirl said:


> Nope, that is not what I have posted. What I have posted is that there is most likely more the story that is written in that one blog post. There are, most likely, a lot of things that have lead to the place they are at. And calling her names is not going to help them solve a thing.





marduk said:


> If this is true, why does she celebrate her decision publically?


I would not call it "celebrate her decision publically".

I think that she wrote about something she is struggling with.

But you will need to ask her since I do not have a psychic channel into her thoughts.


----------



## Wazza

EleGirl said:


> I suppose the only other option is someone who has the problem and is spinning their wheels.


I figure that means they have the problem and are en route to one of the other two. By their own hand, or if they procrastinate too long, by someone else's.


----------



## Fozzy

The profanity doesn't really bother me. I think you can cuss like a sailor and still love your children & be a decent human being. Really nothing on her blog bothers me all that much like this particular article did.


----------



## Cosmos

> Ele said: I and many women will agree that in a marriage that sex is extremely important to bonding with our husband.


I wholeheartedly agree! For me, if there's no sex I feel a total disconnect. My ex husband couldn't have been a better husband on so many levels, but his lack of desire for sex left me feeling lonely, distant and depressed.

However, I think that because many women bond so deeply during sex, it is one of the first things to go when there other important things missing from the relationship, such as mutual cooperation, sharing and (above all) emotional bonding.


----------



## T&T

EleGirl said:


> Women’s brains produce 7-12 times as much oxytocin than mens do during sex.
> 
> When a man has an orgasm, the main hormone released is dopamine — the pleasure hormone.. not oxytocin.


Morning Ele,

Many articles suggest that a man releases oxytocin as well during orgasm. 

Oxytocin

_Men's levels of oxytocin are said to rise 3-5 times during orgasm, and the women's levels rise even more dramatically plus continue to rise during subsequent orgasms._


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Personal said:


> *I've just been reading some of the Missguided Mama blog and Sarah Hosseini's (Missguided Mama's) Twitter page as well and I can honestly say I enjoyed reading her blog posts and my take away from it all was she has a terrific sense of humour*.


 to each their own.



> *Bugged said*: *She's FANTASTIC..like the female version of Bad Santa.*


 Myself & Bad Santa here has had some PMS.. I think he's a wonderful guy .. Good husband & a sight more caring over this broad...I would consider the comparison an insult .


----------



## Wazza

So this entire thread is debating a clickbait blog....


----------



## EllisRedding

T&T said:


> Morning Ele,
> 
> Many articles suggest that a man releases oxytocin as well during orgasm.
> 
> Oxytocin
> 
> _Men's levels of oxytocin are said to rise 3-5 times during orgasm, and the women's levels rise even more dramatically plus continue to rise during subsequent orgasms._


At first I read your post as saying Oxycontin was released, figured that could explain why my knee felt better after last night lol.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Bugged said:


> I don't think he will since I was talking about *the movie *..and if he liked that movie he would probably be crazy in love with Mrs Hosseini...
> I have a friend like her...we're completely different people...but God the times we made each other *laugh until we cried*...sometimes because of me, most of the times because of her...
> 
> Women with a sense of humor like hers are rare...
> I think she'll make an excellent mother because she won't deny nor judge nor suppress negative emotions that everyone has..*she's not afraid of that*...she accepts those emotions and controls them with irony instead of denial, fear or anger...her kids will be very free.
> 
> People like that are not for everyone..*I think MOST men would run a thousand miles from a woman like that *
> 
> But her husband, if he had the guts to marry her..will have a *very hard time to find a substitute*..if he decides to divorce...>>
> You bet.


BadSanta the poster LOVED the movie, that's why he chose the name (I never seen it).... so we'll see.. I tipped his hat to my post and yours.. so he can give his own opinion..

Look ... I am a straight shooter myself...in it's own way.. I have a similar personality to this woman.. what you see is what you get -I've been told this many times over the years.. and I am loved for it...respected ....but I'm NOTHING, and I do mean NOTHING like this woman -with her attitude ... her beliefs, how she looks at marriage, kids, I am on the other side of the spectrum.. 

While I agree with you we shouldn't deny our flaws/ shortcomings , being open/ honest about them before others, those negative emotions...Yes.. we all have them [email protected]#.... it's understanding our "demons inside" so we can effectively deal with them.. (Jung's "shadow" anyone)...also it helps us identify with others as not coming off with our noses in the air...this is ALL healthy!...

Where the divide from her & someone like myself is... in how she deals with her demons...I don't see her showing any humility or much care to how what she says/ does could affect others...she is proud / comes of arrogant...uses crude Joking as some sort of "throw off" so none of it really matters..after all -if your laughing with someone.. she must be "alright".. 

This article , was it joking too?


----------



## Cosmos

SimplyAmorous said:


> "Many women" -not all... This woman appears to have been a party girl... everything she says about her past that I have gleamed in her writings point to that picture...plus her saying she is not Romantic at all on her "about me " write up.....this points to her carrying a "SEX IS JUST SEX" mindset... or in her words - "Fvcking is just Fvcking"
> 
> There are such women....let's not put them ALL into the "caring about an emotional connection" box....if she is as Honest and OPEN as Bugged wants us to believe. why is she not talking about THIS being a problem....I haven't seen it.. does she not know herself then.. should we conclude this ??


Which is why I said "many women."

No matter whether she's romantic or not, like any other human being she _will_ have needs, and if those needs are not being met it's conceivable that she won't desire sex.

There's a lot more going on here than we know, but I'm not prepared to condemn her simply because of her brash, irreverent way of talking.


----------



## GTdad

Bugged said:


> that sex is just sex?
> is that the problem?..I think i said that too on one of Faithful Wife threads..*I do NOT bond through sex*...I don't think it's a problem...I would never have sex with someone I didn't love but it's not that the more I have sex with this person the more I bond..fun yes but...I could go months without..just like Mrs Hosseini..not all women are the same...
> 
> 
> Is this a problem?:surprise:


I think the bulk of this thread is dedicated to the idea that, depending on the husband's view of sex, as a bonding experience or otherwise, it could very well be a huge problem.


----------



## SadSamIAm

Bugged said:


> that sex is just sex?
> is that the problem?..I think i said that too on one of Faithful Wife threads..*I do NOT bond through sex*...I don't think it's a problem...I would never have sex with someone I didn't love but it's not that the more I have sex with this person the more I bond..fun yes but...I could go months without..just like Mrs Hosseini..not all women are the same...
> 
> 
> Is this a problem?:surprise:



We are talking about a relationship between a man and a woman. Both of their needs/feelings need to be taken into account. 

Many women might not bond through sex. But to many men, they do. In a relationship, each partner needs to care about the other's needs. If they only think of their own feelings, they are being selfish and not a good partner.


----------



## Marduk

EleGirl said:


> I would not call it "celebrate her decision publically".
> 
> I think that she wrote about something she is struggling with.
> 
> But you will need to ask her since I do not have a psychic channel into her thoughts.


Right.

Shared 40k times on Facebook, and crossposted to a FB page with > 1M members.

I'm sure it was a very introspective act.


----------



## EleGirl

T&T said:


> Morning Ele,
> 
> Many articles suggest that a man releases oxytocin as well during orgasm.
> 
> Oxytocin
> 
> _Men's levels of oxytocin are said to rise 3-5 times during orgasm, and the women's levels rise even more dramatically plus continue to rise during subsequent orgasms._


Yes, men release oxytocin when the y orgasm. But apparently dopamine is the hormone that raises the most, much more than oxytocin in men.


----------



## Fozzy

Bugged said:


> that sex is just sex?
> is that the problem?..I think i said that too on one of Faithful Wife threads..*I do NOT bond through sex*...I don't think it's a problem...I would never have sex with someone I didn't love but it's not that the more I have sex with this person the more I bond..fun yes but...I could go months without..just like Mrs Hosseini..not all women are the same...
> 
> 
> Is this a problem?:surprise:


Not a problem at all. Many people don't bond through sex. The problem as I saw it with the article was not understanding that for a person who DOES bond through sex--to tell them to go f another person can be the same as telling them to go get their emotional needs met by another person. There's a difference between "I can't meet your needs right now" and "go find someone else".

I've said it before and I'll say it again. I have NO problem with this woman's lack of libido. Low drives happen. Sometimes they're situational, sometimes they're just a baseline for that person. Coming from my perspective however (I'm not particularly high drive anymore either), if my wife had said that to me during our problem years, it very well could have ended our marriage.


----------



## Cosmos

SadSamIAm said:


> We are talking about a relationship between a man and a woman. Both of their needs/feelings need to be taken into account.
> 
> Many women might not bond through sex. But to many men, they do. In a relationship, each partner needs to care about the other's needs. If they only think of their own feelings, they are being selfish and not a good partner.


Sex is a very important part of couple bonding, but there are other things that are of equal importance that keep a couple connected, for example:-



Spending quality time alone together.

Feeling valued, respected and appreciated.

Showing an interest in and sharing information about one another's day to day activities.

Sharing humour together.

Being open and discussing issues with one another in a constructive, respectful manner.

We don't get to decide for others what is important for them to feel connected / bonded, but we have to acknowledge that it is a_ two way street_, and if one partner doesn't feel that their needs are being met in areas that are _important to them_, they're unlikely to want to meet the bonding needs of the other.

Communication and mutual compromise is key to resolving these issues.


----------



## Tall Average Guy

always_alone said:


> Because she's lost her libido, because having sex because she's "supposed" to makes her feel icky, and because all of the pressure to be sexual is making her feel even more like a failure and even less sexual.
> 
> Why is this so hard to understand?


Not hard to understand at all. But she talks about all the other pressures that she has, yet does not shut those folks out. Self-imposed pressures, yet the only person that she dumps is her husband - not her friends or her career.

So why is that?


----------



## Fozzy

Cosmos said:


> Which is why I said "many women."
> 
> No matter whether she's romantic or not, like any other human being she _will_ have needs, and if those needs are not being met it's conceivable that she won't desire sex.
> 
> There's a lot more going on here than we know, but I'm not prepared to condemn her simply because of her brash, irreverent way of talking.


To earlier posters assertions that she might be depressed, irreverent and crude humor can often be employed as a defense mechanism by depressed people. Which is why so many stand-up comedians are some of the most screwed up people you can find as a group.

Maybe her mom blog is a defense mechanism. Maybe she's just like that. I don't have any issue with crude humor because I often employ it myself. Humor is just humor as long as it's identified as such.I'd say most of her Misguided Mama blog is obviously humorous in nature. I got a few chuckles out of some of it. 

Irreverence is awesomely important because it allows people to better examine sacred cows using humor. I've been in several meetings in my professional life when my big mouth opened and said something completely inappropriate. Sometimes it falls flat. Other times I've had people come up to me after the meeting and thank me for being the one to say it.

I just don't like that one post. Sue me.


----------



## Tall Average Guy

EleGirl said:


> I think that he below quote is her talking about the pressure she has from him on the sexual front.
> 
> "But my husband does drop hints when he's horny (which is constant), that if I really loved him, I'd want to have sex with him."
> 
> On all other fronts, she's mostly on her own with little support from him based on his travel schedule. That might be part of her frustration. I'll ask her about is as soon as she shows up here . >


And yet she refuses things that would take off the pressure? That she takes action on this front, and not others, speaks volumes about where she is. She in fact does not want to want intimacy from him. Her problem (and theirs) is that she won't admit that.


----------



## Tall Average Guy

Personal said:


> I've just been reading some of the Missguided Mama blog and Sarah Hosseini's (Missguided Mama's) Twitter page as well and I can honestly say I enjoyed reading her blog posts and my take away from it all was she has a terrific sense of humour.


Which is why I think it is foolish to try and glean to much about her and her relationship from her posts. She is a humor writer going for page hits and clicks. You don't get that by being nuanced and balanced. I am sure there is a lot of truth in her statements, but trying to tease that out from the hyperbole and comic effect is both difficult and dangerous.


----------



## Cosmos

Fozzy said:


> To earlier posters assertions that she might be depressed, irreverent and crude humor can often be employed as a defense mechanism by depressed people. Which is why so many stand-up comedians are some of the most screwed up people you can find as a group.
> 
> Maybe her mom blog is a defense mechanism. Maybe she's just like that. I don't have any issue with crude humor because I often employ it myself. Humor is just humor as long as it's identified as such.I'd say most of her Misguided Mama blog is obviously humorous in nature. I got a few chuckles out of some of it.
> 
> Irreverence is awesomely important because it allows people to better examine sacred cows using humor. I've been in several meetings in my professional life when my big mouth opened and said something completely inappropriate. Sometimes it falls flat. Other times I've had people come up to me after the meeting and thank me for being the one to say it.
> 
> I just don't like that one post. Sue me.


I don't like that she suggested a hall pass to her H, either, and can but guess at what prompted her to say such a damaging thing.

My take on her blogs is that she's getting her angries out in a manner that feels 'normal' and cathartic to her (she's a writer?). The fact that she's coming across as irreverent, brash and abrasive doesn't mask the pain and frustration I believe she's feeling.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Tall Average Guy said:


> Not hard to understand at all. But she talks about all the other pressures that she has, yet does not shut those folks out. Self-imposed pressures, yet the only person that she dumps is her husband - not her friends or her career.
> 
> So why is that?


Exactly the issue I have... she is singling him out when there are other issues that need singling out first.


----------



## ocotillo

EleGirl said:


> So yes, there is a difference in what the genders get/feel from sex. Women feel much more bonded by sex. Men feel more pleasure.


Judging the behavioral effect of hormones on a purely linear basis would lead to the conclusion that women do not possess nearly the same sex drive that men do. 

I tend to believe those who point out that baseline hormone levels are also important in a manner roughly analogous to a shot of hard liquor having a stronger effect on a teetotaler.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Tall Average Guy said:


> And yet she refuses things that would take off the pressure? That she takes action on this front, and not others, speaks volumes about where she is. She in fact does not want to want intimacy from him. Her problem (and theirs) is that she won't admit that.


:yay:


----------



## EllisRedding

Blossom Leigh said:


> Exactly the issue I have... she is singling him out when there are other issues that need singling out first.


And maybe, just maybe, don't tell the world you told your husband to go fvk someone else ... I can only imagine if this guy's family, friends, etc... read that blog...


----------



## bkyln309

From reading her other blog posts, she needs some serious therapy!


----------



## SadSamIAm

Cosmos said:


> Sex is a very important part of couple bonding, but there are other things that are of equal importance that keep a couple connected, for example:-
> 
> 
> 
> Spending quality time alone together.
> 
> Feeling valued, respected and appreciated.
> 
> Showing an interest in and sharing information about one another's day to day activities.
> 
> Sharing humour together.
> 
> Being open and discussing issues with one another in a constructive, respectful manner.
> 
> We don't get to decide for others what is important for them to feel connected / bonded, but we have to acknowledge that it is a_ two way street_, and if one partner doesn't feel that their needs are being met in areas that are _important to them_, they're unlikely to want to meet the bonding needs of the other.
> 
> Communication and mutual compromise is key to resolving these issues.


Agreed! 

Your list above could easily be my wife's list of needs. 

If we are having regular intimacy, it is very natural for me to meet those needs of her. Having sex makes me feel close to her. Makes me want to share my day, spend time with her, make each other laugh, etc. 

When she rejects me for a week or more, not so much.

We will have sex and for the next 4 or 5 days we get along great. After a few rejections, I get annoyed. When I try again, she will say "How am I supposed to feel like having sex with you when you never talk to me?" and I say "How am I supposed to want to talk to you when you won't let me get close to you?"

Our issue (and I think for many other couples as well) is that she sees her needs as more important than mine. Her needs are real needs. My need for sex is really just a want in her mind. She doesn't understand. And after almost 30 years of marriage, I don't think she ever will.


----------



## SadSamIAm

Personal said:


> Sex isn't the Holy Grail to everyone.
> 
> One can care very highly about having an emotional connection and likewise also establish plus maintain an intense emotional connection, while coincidentally thinking SEX is just sex.
> 
> I love my wife rather intensely, we have remained happily together through many trials and tribulations which include me spending six months in and out of hospital when I nearly died while our oldest child was likewise spending days at a time in hospital as well because of breathing problems at 6 months of age.
> 
> We have also spent months apart at a time because of my former Army service and days at a time apart for her work as well. We have lived in inner city bustle and have also lived for a few years in a small isolated rural town on the edge of the Outback where we were isolated even further by floodwater for a few weeks.
> 
> We have weathered redundancy, unemployment, lease terminations and house purchases . While I have also seen my wife smashed into a bloody mess when a car cleaned up her and others as we crossed a road together, it took her months to recover.
> 
> Through all of that and much more (including 7 addresses in 16 years) we have loved each other very deeply and faithfully with great devotion for 19 years while raising some great happy kids (turning 15 and 12) after being married for 16 years. Yet despite the fact we still enjoy lots of very frequent, wanton and wonderfully lustful sex together, we're not bad people because we both still think SEX is just sex.
> 
> For us sex isn't always love and love is far more than sex.


You have had many trials and tribulations throughout your marriage that made sex difficult.

But that isn't what we are talking about here. 

We are talking about two able bodied people that aren't sick and aren't living apart.


----------



## Cosmos

SadSamIAm said:


> Agreed!
> 
> Your list above could easily be my wife's list of needs.
> 
> If we are having regular intimacy, it is very natural for me to meet those needs of her. Having sex makes me feel close to her. Makes me want to share my day, spend time with her, make each other laugh, etc.
> 
> When she rejects me for a week or more, not so much.
> 
> We will have sex and for the next 4 or 5 days we get along great. After a few rejections, I get annoyed. When I try again, she will say *"How am I supposed to feel like having sex with you when you never talk to me?" and I say "How am I supposed to want to talk to you when you won't let me get close to you?"*
> 
> Our issue (and I think for many other couples as well) is that *she sees her needs as more important than mine. Her needs are real needs. My need for sex is really just a want in her mind.* She doesn't understand. And after almost 30 years of marriage, I don't think she ever will.


This seems to be a common issue with many couples, unfortunately. Whilst any one need might _seem _ to be of less or more importance than another, to each individual that need can be _absolutely vital_ and this must be acknowledged if there is to be any resolution.

Again, compromise...


----------



## Cosmos

SadSamIAm said:


> You have had many trials and tribulations throughout your marriage that made sex difficult.
> 
> But that isn't what we are talking about here.
> 
> *We are talking about two able bodied people that aren't sick and aren't living apart.*


To a certain extent I think we are. The woman's H is away most of the time, and this could well be a major part of the problem.

She talks about being nervous being alone with 2 children at night, and mostly getting to share her bed with her children...


----------



## always_alone

marduk said:


> Right.
> 
> Shared 40k times on Facebook, and crossposted to a FB page with > 1M members.
> 
> I'm sure it was a very introspective act.


One might be tempted to think that the sheer popularity of it is a pretty good indication that she is tapping into something that many people out there really appreciate. Indeed, perhaps giving voice to feelings that are shared and understood by many -- even though it's clearly something you're not supposed to think, feel, or talk about.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

She has a mouth, she can tell him, this is not working for me and speak her peace about his job.


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> One might be tempted to think that the sheer popularity of it is a pretty good indication that she is tapping into something that many people out there really appreciate. Indeed, perhaps giving voice to feelings that are shared and understood by many -- even though it's clearly something you're not supposed to think, feel, or talk about.


I agree.

I just think it's pretty much in line with a husband deciding to mistreat his wife because he feels like it, celebrates it, and a bunch of people read it as validation, shock value...

and normalizes it, making it OK.

Which is my real problem.


----------



## always_alone

ocotillo said:


> Judging the behavioral effect of hormones on a purely linear basis would lead to the conclusion that women do not possess nearly the same sex drive that men do.
> 
> I tend to believe those who point out that baseline hormone levels are also important in a manner roughly analogous to a shot of hard liquor having a stronger effect on a teetotaler.


Only on the assumption that testosterone is the only hormone that affects sex drive.

But that said, I agree with you on this one. Neuroscience does not and cannot draw hard and direct connections between quantities of neurochemical and behaviour/feeling as it is experienced.


----------



## always_alone

marduk said:


> I agree.
> 
> I just think it's pretty much in line with a husband deciding to mistreat his wife because he feels like it, celebrates it, and a bunch of people read it as validation, shock value...
> 
> and normalizes it, making it OK.
> 
> Which is my real problem.


errr, there's a pretty huge difference between losing one's libido being subject to excruciating judgment about not being "good enough" and "deciding to mistreat his wife because he feels like it".

She has not decided to mistreat him, and she is most certainly not celebrating it ...


----------



## Cosmos

Blossom Leigh said:


> She has a mouth, she can tell him, this is not working for me and speak her peace about his job.


Absolutely. Maybe she has. Maybe she hasn't...


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Cosmos said:


> Absolutely. Maybe she has. Maybe she hasn't...


One thing is clear she needs refinement in separating out the issues and effectively address them directly instead of just venting. Be strategic and direct Babe... venting can give temporary emotional release, but it is not the final solution.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

always_alone said:


> errr, there's a pretty huge difference between losing one's libido being subject to excruciating judgment about not being "good enough" and "deciding to mistreat his wife because he feels like it".
> 
> She has not decided to mistreat him, and she is most certainly not celebrating it ...


Are we reading the same article?


----------



## Tall Average Guy

always_alone said:


> She has not decided to mistreat him, and she is most certainly not celebrating it ...


She is clearly attempting to frame her decision as one for celebration. Her tone is one of relief that she made this decision and the pressure is off. She is happy that she no longer has to deal with the issue of sex with her husband.

I think much of the celebratory tone is for effect, but to pretend otherwise ignores her voice.


----------



## always_alone

Tall Average Guy said:


> Not hard to understand at all. But she talks about all the other pressures that she has, yet does not shut those folks out. Self-imposed pressures, yet the only person that she dumps is her husband - not her friends or her career.
> 
> So why is that?


You don't know that. This post is about her libido and that particular pressure Doesn't mean she also doesn't neglect her friends, cut back on work, and all sorts of other things. She probably also sometimes feeds her kids fish fingers instead of an 8 course banquet. 

Just because she wasn't bragging about how she gave up cooking and cleaning altogether so that she could have more time to bone her husband doesn't mean that all sorts of things aren't being done the way she wants to do them.

And really, is the message here that her only priority should ever be her husband's libido? Because that's sure what it's starting to sound like. Men here advise each other all of the time to lower the importance of their wives in their list of priorities, but if a woman dares to spend an hour writing a blog post instead of devoting that time to having sex with her husband? Well, look out folks!


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> errr, there's a pretty huge difference between losing one's libido being subject to excruciating judgment about not being "good enough" and "deciding to mistreat his wife because he feels like it".
> 
> She has not decided to mistreat him, and she is most certainly not celebrating it ...


I don't know how to say this any other way A_A.

My issue is not with her loss of libido.

My issue is what she did with that to her husband. She mistreated him, pure and simple... because she felt like it.

And my large issue is that she is publicly congratulating herself on her poor decision making in a way that encourages others to do so.


----------



## Tall Average Guy

always_alone said:


> One might be tempted to think that the sheer popularity of it is a pretty good indication that she is tapping into something that many people out there really appreciate. Indeed, perhaps giving voice to feelings that are shared and understood by many -- even though it's clearly something you're not supposed to think, feel, or talk about.


Which is where the danger lies. I have no doubt that she is tapping into a very real emotion that many feel. But when she writes about no more sex with her husband and sending him off to have sex with another as a matter of celebration, she is no longer merely speaking about problems that were not supposed to be through, felt or talked about - she is now advocating specific action and celebrating that action.


----------



## NobodySpecial

I have a different take than the rest of you. They are both being selfish. She does not seem willing to do much to address it. Why can't all the other things be enough, "we" are good. No "we" are not good unless you are both good. Her side sucks. But do does he. Pressure, nag, hint. Yuck. The worst is the guilt. If you loved me, you would want to. Wtf? Is there ANYONE who would not shrink from that?


----------



## Marduk

NobodySpecial said:


> I have a different take than the rest of you. They are both being selfish. She does not seem willing to do much to address it. Why can't all the other things be enough, "we" are good. No "we" are not good unless you are both good. Her side sucks. But do does he. Pressure, nag, hint. Yuck. The worst is the guilt. If you loved me, you would want to. Wtf? Is there ANYONE who would not shrink from that?


Oh, I agree with that.

I think he's selfish for not being around more and not digging into the true problem. Or problems.

One of which to me sounds very much like she's not attracted to him anymore.


----------



## Tall Average Guy

always_alone said:


> You don't know that. This post is about her libido and that particular pressure Doesn't mean she also doesn't neglect her friends, cut back on work, and all sorts of other things. She probably also sometimes feeds her kids fish fingers instead of an 8 course banquet.


Well, she noted that she could get a service to cook and clean and her husband would not care. By implication, she is telling us she has not done that.



> Just because she wasn't bragging about how she gave up cooking and cleaning altogether so that she could have more time to bone her husband doesn't mean that all sorts of things aren't being done the way she wants to do them.


LOL. Your instance that it is all about boning freeing up time to bone her husband demonstrates your inability or unwillingness to see the issue. 

She is the one complaining about stress and its effects. She is the one noting that except for sex, the stress has nothing to do with her husband. Yet the only stresser she removes is her husband. Why is that?



> And really, is the message here that her only priority should ever be her husband's libido? Because that's sure what it's starting to sound like. Men here advise each other all of the time to lower the importance of their wives in their list of priorities, but if a woman dares to spend an hour writing a blog post instead of devoting that time to having sex with her husband? Well, look out folks!


Actually, her first priority should be her marriage. Not having sex with her husband hurts her marriage. You can keep rebutting arguments I have not made, but it won't change my point - in dealing with all kinds of stress, she only appears to be willing to change to get rid of one of them. That says a lot.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Tall Average Guy said:


> always_alone said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know that. This post is about her libido and that particular pressure Doesn't mean she also doesn't neglect her friends, cut back on work, and all sorts of other things. She probably also sometimes feeds her kids fish fingers instead of an 8 course banquet.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, she noted that she could get a service to cook and clean and her husband would not care. By implication, she is telling us she has not done that.
> 
> 
> 
> LOL. Your instance that it is all about boning freeing up time to bone her husband demonstrates your inability or unwillingness to see the issue.
> 
> She is the one complaining about stress and its effects. She is the one noting that except for sex, the stress has nothing to do with her husband. *Yet the only stresser she removes is her husband. Why is that?*
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, her first priority should be her marriage. Not having sex with her husband hurts her marriage. You can keep rebutting arguments I have not made, but it won't change my point - in dealing with all kinds of stress, she only appears to be willing to change to get rid of one of them. That says a lot.
> 
> 
> 
> My personal opinion... he is a form of accountability in an area she is unwilling to face, therefore she pushes back on him....
> 
> UNLESS ... from what I can tell he is Arab and from my personal exposure to them they do not take no for an answer. If this is the case she will REALLY have to learn to use that voice of hers quite well with him.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Cosmos

Blossom Leigh said:


> *One thing is clear she needs refinement in separating out the issues and effectively address them directly* instead of just venting. Be strategic and direct Babe... venting can give temporary emotional release, but it is not the final solution.


Perhaps she's finding it difficult to do this, even though it would be a far more constructive way of dealing with the issue. For all we know, she might have already tried to address things with him and drawn a blank.


----------



## Fozzy

NobodySpecial said:


> I have a different take than the rest of you. They are both being selfish. She does not seem willing to do much to address it. Why can't all the other things be enough, "we" are good. No "we" are not good unless you are both good. Her side sucks. But do does he. Pressure, nag, hint. Yuck. The worst is the guilt. If you loved me, you would want to. Wtf? Is there ANYONE who would not shrink from that?


Nagging and hinting is the wrong way to do things if she's communicated that she doesn't want to have sex.

At what point however is he allowed to initiate sex again? If the answer is "not until she decides she wants sex"--fair enough, but what if she is like my wife and refuses to initiate?

If any initiation is seen as pressure until a woman is ready to have sex, but a woman won't initiate under normal circumstances, what then?


----------



## Marduk

Cosmos said:


> Perhaps she's finding it difficult to do this, even though it would be a far more constructive way of dealing with the issue. For all we know, she might have already tried to address things with him and drawn a blank.


How about instead of injecting a wish list of new "maybe she did..." things into the debate, instead we acknowledge that what she says resonates with some of the people here because they've struggled with such issues? 

And this makes people want to project things onto it that doesn't make her a bad person... because if she is, maybe we are, too?

And she wraps it into a compelling well-written attractive package that makes celebrating her decision feel like empowerment?


----------



## Marduk

Fozzy said:


> Nagging and hinting is the wrong way to do things if she's communicated that she doesn't want to have sex.
> 
> At what point however is he allowed to initiate sex again? If the answer is "not until she decides she wants sex"--fair enough, but what if she is like my wife and refuses to initiate?
> 
> If any initiation is seen as pressure until a woman is ready to have sex, but a woman won't initiate under normal circumstances, what then?


If you can't win the game, either stop playing or change the rules.

If one person gets to make the rules and the other one can't...

You know who's actually in charge and gets most of the benefit.


----------



## Fozzy

Blossom Leigh said:


> Tall Average Guy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> always_alone said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know that. This post is about her libido and that particular pressure Doesn't mean she also doesn't neglect her friends, cut back on work, and all sorts of other things. She probably also sometimes feeds her kids fish fingers instead of an 8 course banquet.
> 
> My personal opinion... he is a form of accountability in an area she is unwilling to face, therefore she pushes back on him....
> 
> UNLESS ... from what I can tell he is Arab and from my personal exposure to them they do not take no for an answer. If this is the case she will REALLY have to learn to use that voice of hers quite well with him.
> 
> 
> 
> He's Persian, non-practicing muslim/baptist. I'd hazard a guess that he's pretty laid back if he married her.
> 
> 
> ETA--not sure what's up with these quote functions. The quote above was not A_A's, but Blossom's.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Satya

This thread has grown and I'm probably well behind here, but I see lots of talk about stress, yet sex has always been one of the greatest stress-relievers I've ever experienced. All these calming chemicals released, exercise, blood pumping, afterglow, bonding. 

Rather than see sex as a burden or just another job when I'm tired or stressed, I see it as very much needed and wanted to help get me through it all. It might not be so for all, but I believe that mind over matter plays a great part and many view sex (imo somewhat narrowly) as a hill to climb rather than wave to ride.


----------



## Cosmos

marduk said:


> How about instead of injecting a wish list of new "maybe she did..." things into the debate, instead we acknowledge that what she says resonates with some of the people here because they've struggled with such issues?
> 
> And this makes people want to project things onto it that doesn't make her a bad person... because if she is, maybe we are, too?
> 
> And she wraps it into a compelling well-written attractive package that makes celebrating her decision feel like empowerment?


Hardly a "wish list." A debate of this nature is just that. We have no way of knowing the real issues in her relationship - hence the maybe, maybe nots.

Do you really get the impression that her writing makes her feel empowered? Again, maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. Who knows what her motive is for splashing the details of her personal life all over the internet?


----------



## Marduk

Cosmos said:


> Hardly a "wish list." A debate of this nature is just that. We have no way of knowing the real issues in her relationship - hence the maybe, maybe nots.


Or we could just respond to what she actually wrote, not speculating on what she may or may not be thinking.

Again, this is because she is clearly encouraging others to do the same. It's not just about her any more.


> Do you really get the impression that her writing makes her feel empowered? Again, maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. Who knows what her motive is for splashing the details of her personal life all over the internet?


Absolutely.

Do you really not?

Why is she posting it if she isn't?

This has probably been read by upwards of a million people.


----------



## Fozzy

FrenchFry said:


> That + all this debate about her potty mouth leads me to believe that she wasn't prepared for how hard her husband would take getting a hall pass.
> 
> I've said ****ty things that have hurt my husband as well--which I didn't think would hurt him because he is fairly used to my overall bluntness.
> 
> Also, yes we are arguing over clickbait...she did a great job.


Don't you dare derail this thread now. I'm so close to my beer.


----------



## Cosmos

Satya said:


> This thread has grown and I'm probably well behind here, but I see lots of talk about stress, yet sex has always been one of the greatest stress-relievers I've ever experienced. All these calming chemicals released, exercise, blood pumping, afterglow, bonding.
> 
> Rather than see sex as a burden or just another job when I'm tired or stressed, I see it as very much needed and wanted to help get me through it all. It might not be so for all, but I believe that mind over matter plays a great part and many view sex (imo somewhat narrowly) as a hill to climb rather than wave to ride.


I agree with you, Satya, but for some stress in a relationship can have the opposite effect and kill all desire for sex. The mind simply becomes too noisy for it to reason and place itself above matter.


----------



## SadSamIAm

FrenchFry said:


> He still hasn't said a bad word.


When you are around! He probably cusses freely around family and friends.


----------



## Fozzy

FrenchFry said:


> Lets talk about cussing in front of your children. That will get us there, I promise.
> 
> I try not to cuss in front of my kid, and I never cuss at him. But all my friends and family are potty mouths and I don't bother to censor them one bit. Also, we listen to uncensored music.
> 
> He still hasn't said a bad word.


I try to censor myself also, but sometimes I fail. My kids tend to not hear a word I say until it's a word I don't want them to hear. My kids do cuss, but they know better than to do it in front of me. I've overheard them saying a few things that I'm pretty sure came from the playground. I did the same as a kid.

I had a talk with them and told them "Look, I know you cuss. Please don't do it in front of me, your mother, your teachers, or anyone who might call me. Be smart about what you say, and who you say it in front of."

So far so good.


----------



## Wazza

Fozzy said:


> Don't you dare derail this thread now. I'm so close to my beer.


The thread is all about taking personal responsibility for your situation. Nobody else should have to post just so you can reach some arbitrary and self imposed target. I think it would clearly be a great episode of personal growth to demonstrate you have achieved new and deeper understanding by having that beer now, not waiting till post 1000. I think you need to do this.

Do it. I know you have it in you. Or will as soon as you drink it.


----------



## Cosmos

marduk said:


> Or we could just respond to what she actually wrote, not speculating on what she may or may not be thinking.
> 
> Again, this is because she is clearly encouraging others to do the same. It's not just about her any more.
> 
> 
> Absolutely.
> 
> Do you really not?
> 
> Why is she posting it if she isn't?
> 
> This has probably been read by upwards of a million people.



I think you'll find that most of my maybe / maybe nots are in response to the speculation of others in this thread.

I have no idea why she created her blog, but no one is forcing us to read or respond to it. Nor is anyone forcing any of us to take part in this thread.


----------



## ocotillo

Cosmos said:


> Do you really get the impression that her writing makes her feel empowered?


I would guess that is, at least in part the point of the whole, "Scary Mommy / Mad Housewife / Bad Mother" phenomenon.

It seems to resonate with women who've had children too soon or too close together. (Or both)


----------



## Buddy400

Tall Average Guy said:


> You can keep rebutting arguments I have not made


That's what she does.

Whether that's willful or due to a lack of comprehension, I'm not sure.


----------



## Marduk

Cosmos said:


> I think you'll find that most of my maybe / maybe nots are in response to the speculation of others in this thread.
> 
> I have no idea why she created her blog, but no one is forcing us to read or respond to it. Nor is anyone forcing any of us to take part in this thread.


OK to the first paragraph. Fair enough.

As to the second, again, a false dichotomy. And the "if you don't like it, don't read it" defence isn't a defence of hers at all. It's just a lack of accountability.

Free speech doesn't mean freedom from being accountible for your actions.


----------



## Cosmos

ocotillo said:


> I would guess that is, at least in part the point of the whole, "Scary Mommy / Mad Housewife / Bad Mother" phenomenon.
> 
> It seems to resonate with women who've had children too soon or too close together. (Or both)


Could be. The very titles "Scary Mommy / Mad Housewife / Bad Mother" make me think that she feels somehow out of control, and perhaps she's seeking the validation of others who feel the same. Who knows?


----------



## Marduk

ocotillo said:


> I would guess that is, at least in part the point of the whole, "Scary Mommy / Mad Housewife / Bad Mother" phenomenon.
> 
> It seems to resonate with women who've had children too soon or too close together. (Or both)


The only analagous situation that I've personally witnessed is a group of women that my wife knows that pushed to have a bunch of kids, and now see themselves as martyrs for it. And like to congratulate themselves for downing a bottle of wine every night, ignoring their husband and kids, and laughing about it.

Maybe that's partly what I'm responding to.


----------



## Cosmos

marduk said:


> OK to the first paragraph. Fair enough.
> 
> As to the second, again, a false dichotomy. And the "if you don't like it, don't read it" defence isn't a defence of hers at all. It's just a lack of accountability.
> 
> Free speech doesn't mean freedom from being accountible for your actions.


I said that WE have a choice whether or not WE respond, speculate or respond to what she's written.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Stop the presses, I have Sarah aka MissGuided Mama in my email. Stay tuned....


----------



## farsidejunky

Popcorn...


----------



## farsidejunky

Will we get the persona or the wo(man) behind the curtain?


----------



## EllisRedding

Blossom Leigh said:


> Stop the presses, I have Sarah aka MissGuided Mama in my email. Stay tuned....


----------



## Cosmos

marduk said:


> The only analagous situation that I've personally witnessed is a group of women that my wife knows that pushed to have a bunch of kids, and now see themselves as martyrs for it. And like to congratulate themselves for downing a bottle of wine every night, ignoring their husband and kids, and laughing about it.
> 
> Maybe that's partly what I'm responding to.


Horrible, neglectful behaviour, for sure, but this isn't what blog woman has told us she's doing... Her H is away for long stretches at a time and she limits her intake of vino to 2 glasses because she is aware of her responsibility towards her kids.


----------



## Marduk

Cosmos said:


> Horrible, neglectful behaviour, for sure, but this isn't what blog woman is doing... Her H is away for long stretches at a time and she limits her intake of vino to 2 glasses because she is aware of her responsibility towards her kids.


you're ignoring the fact that she said she finds it pressure to love her kids or care about her husband's day.

And the fact that she complains about pressure in other areas, but doesn't want help with that. Just to shut the taps of on sex until she feels like opening them again, if ever.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Hello Blossom,

Thank you for contacting me. I appreciate your invitation to the forum. As a writer, I believe writing is for the public to decipher and analyze and form opinions.

The base of the article boils down to the simple belief I have about marriage in general- marriage changes, and there are a plethora of ways to adapt and solve problems when they arise.

It might not be for everyone, it may be unconventional.

I'm happy to report - since the article was published- sex in my marriage has gotten very much back on track.

I think I'm lucky. It was a hard conversation to have with my husband- and a totally bizarre one to have by some people's standards. Alas, it helped us be connected again.

You can share the comments of this email on your forum and invite anyone to email me at [email protected].

*I will say, I won't respond to character assassinations or judgy comments- if readers have those- they can stop reading my writing.
*
If others are more curious about my situation and are looking for more information about my experience- they are welcome to contact me.

Best,

Sarah Hosseini


----------



## Marduk

I'm glad it worked out for her.

Not reacting to "judgy" comments smacks of "celebrate me, don't challenge me" and does nothing to change my mind.


----------



## farsidejunky

Swing! And a miss..

(Fozzy, trying to help your thirst, brother!)


----------



## Fozzy

Blossom, since you pretty much just put a nail in this thread, the next nine posts are on you.

Beer me! CHOOO CHOOOOO!


----------



## Blossom Leigh

LOL Fozzy... well.. I did send her a question that I'm waiting on a response to and that is what did she feel was the main catalyst for her sex life getting back on track.

I find it interesting she was so poised in her email. Dignity is a choice.


----------



## farsidejunky

Blossom Leigh said:


> Dignity is a choice.


Even if misplaced...


----------



## Cosmos

marduk said:


> you're ignoring the fact that she said she finds it pressure to love her kids or care about her husband's day.
> 
> And the fact that she complains about pressure in other areas, but doesn't want help with that. Just to shut the taps of on sex until she feels like opening them again, if ever.


No I'm not. I'm looking at the relationship as a whole and trying to make sense of its _many_ issues...


----------



## farsidejunky

Guinness?


----------



## farsidejunky

Heineken?


----------



## farsidejunky

1000!

Here's to you, Fozzy...


----------



## Fozzy

1554 from New Belgium Brewery. My favorite.


----------



## Tall Average Guy

Blossom Leigh said:


> I'm happy to report - since the article was published- sex in my marriage has gotten very much back on track.
> 
> I think I'm lucky. It was a hard conversation to have with my husband- and a totally bizarre one to have by some people's standards. Alas, it helped us be connected again.


Interesting that after writing that she was done trying, she did in fact have the difficult conversation that started things again. Good for her. 

Wonder if that will make it to her blog.


----------



## Tall Average Guy

FrenchFry said:


> One day I will send you a scan of my journal from when I was pissed at my husband.
> 
> Makes this lady look positively angelic.


Seems to me a big difference between venting you thoughts about him to a journal and doing so for the world to see. YMMV.


----------



## farsidejunky

Tall Average Guy said:


> Interesting that after writing that she was done trying, she did in fact have the difficult conversation that started things again. Good for her.
> 
> Wonder if that will make it to her blog.


The difference between persona and real life.

Her email sounded quite different.

Are we all just so lacking in things to do that we argued over the morals of...effectively...a cartoon?

Facepalm...


----------



## Blossom Leigh

farsidejunky said:


> 1000!
> 
> Here's to you, Fozzy...


Bottoms up on my extra stout guinness!


----------



## Blossom Leigh

FrenchFry said:


> One day I will send you a scan of my journal from when I was pissed at my husband.
> 
> Makes this lady look positively angelic.


lol.. I look forward to it :nerd:


----------



## Tall Average Guy

farsidejunky said:


> The difference between persona and real life.
> 
> Her email sounded quite different.
> 
> Are we all just so lacking in things to do that we argued over the morals of...effectively...a cartoon?
> 
> Facepalm...


No doubt. Her persona is about driving page views. I have no expectation that the hard conversation will ever make it to her blog, because that is to real and not all that funny. Unfortunately, that can feed others into making bad decisions.

That said, still good on her (and her husband) for actually having the conversation.


----------



## Fozzy

farsidejunky said:


> The difference between persona and real life.
> 
> Her email sounded quite different.
> 
> *Are we all just so lacking in things to do that we argued over the morals of...effectively...a cartoon?
> 
> Facepalm... *


Well, I'm currently on a conference call with a bunch of people that make three times what I do. So.....yeah.


----------



## Cosmos

Tall Average Guy said:


> No doubt. Her persona is about driving page views. I have no expectation that the hard conversation will ever make it to her blog, because that is to real and not all that funny. _Unfortunately, that can feed others into making bad decisions._
> 
> That said, still good on her (and her husband) for actually having the conversation.


If it does, TAG, they have more problems than blog woman herself!

It's good to hear that they've fixed their problems.


----------



## Cosmos

farsidejunky said:


> The difference between persona and real life.
> 
> Her email sounded quite different.
> 
> Are we all just so lacking in things to do that we argued over the morals of...effectively...a cartoon?
> 
> Facepalm...


No, but it sure helped me get my mind off my own issues for a while (I'm recovering from spinal neck surgery)!:grin2:


----------



## Icey181

Blossom Leigh said:


> Hello Blossom,
> 
> Thank you for contacting me. I appreciate your invitation to the forum. As a writer, I believe writing is for the public to decipher and analyze and form opinions.
> 
> The base of the article boils down to the simple belief I have about marriage in general- marriage changes, and there are a plethora of ways to adapt and solve problems when they arise.
> 
> It might not be for everyone, it may be unconventional.
> 
> I'm happy to report - since the article was published- sex in my marriage has gotten very much back on track.
> 
> I think I'm lucky. It was a hard conversation to have with my husband- and a totally bizarre one to have by some people's standards. Alas, it helped us be connected again.
> 
> You can share the comments of this email on your forum and invite anyone to email me at [email protected].
> 
> *I will say, I won't respond to character assassinations or judgy comments- if readers have those- they can stop reading my writing.
> *
> If others are more curious about my situation and are looking for more information about my experience- they are welcome to contact me.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Sarah Hosseini


Happy to see that things are back on track for her.

Does not excuse what she did.

And I would be very interested to find out how that "gotten very much back on track" happened.

Personally, I wonder if she realized just how much she messed up…


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Guys.... she and I are still talking... hope to give more insight shortly...


----------



## farsidejunky

FrenchFry said:


> Oh, I deleted my posts here as well--a public venue.
> 
> (I really enjoy purging my posts, actually. Very cathartic.)
> 
> Are you guys really surprised that she isn't the same as she is on her blog?


Nope.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

FrenchFry said:


> Oh, I deleted my posts here as well--a public venue.
> 
> (I really enjoy purging my posts, actually. Very cathartic.)
> 
> Are you guys really surprised that she isn't the same as she is on her blog?


Don't be too fast to think that....


----------



## Blossom Leigh

True to TAM philosophy... he backed off and she ended up wanting him more.... the 180 folks... probably a soft one, but a 180 none the less.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

His schedule is 6 weeks home/6 weeks gone and when he was home it was relentless.

She also recognizes her own self imposed pressures (yay).


----------



## EllisRedding

Blossom Leigh said:


> True to TAM philosophy... he backed off and she ended up wanting him more.... the 180 folks... probably a soft one, but a 180 none the less.


Well that is boring lol. I was hoping more of a Husband took the pass and bagged 3 ladies (and one dude), Blogger confessed that two of the kids aren't actually his, etc... and ultimately we find out the blogger is really a 25 yr old man living in his parent's basement ... what a bummer :crying:


----------



## Blossom Leigh

She felt it took getting that big and in his face for him to respond. Prior to that he wasn't responding.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

FrenchFry said:


> :rofl: Me too!


I could write a book on that.


----------



## Fozzy

Glad it worked out for them. Backing off did not work for me. Backing off resulted in zero sex for a long time. It still would.


----------



## Icey181

Blossom Leigh said:


> True to TAM philosophy... he backed off and she ended up wanting him more.... the 180 folks... probably a soft one, but a 180 none the less.


It works..at least in the short term.

Working for me atm too...:nerd:


----------



## always_alone

Tall Average Guy said:


> She is the one complaining about stress and its effects. She is the one noting that except for sex, the stress has nothing to do with her husband. Yet the only stresser she removes is her husband. Why is that?



As I said before, the stress that is the subject of this is the loss of her libido and all the pressure she feels to be sufficiently sexual and sufficiently satisfying to her h. So of course the solutions she talks about will aim at that.

How is eating take-away and hiring a maid going to make her feel sexy? How is that going to bring back her libido. It won't. It can't. So why everyone keeps pressing that as the obvious solution is beyond me.

And I stand by what I said about prioritizing her husband's libido over everything else. All through this thread she has been attacked for writing a post, for not hiring a maid, for feeling pressured to feel something that she is simply just not feeling. And for what? Tell me, please. 

Because what it keeps coming back to is that she is an absolutely terrible person because she had the audacity to offer her husband an alternative route to sexual satisfaction and failed to place her husband's libido at the very top of her priority list at all times.


----------



## EllisRedding

Fozzy said:


> Glad it worked out for them. Backing off did not work for me. Backing off resulted in zero sex for a long time. It still would.


Maybe you should have posted about everything publicly in a blog, would've gotten results then  ...


----------



## always_alone

marduk said:


> My issue is what she did with that to her husband. She mistreated him, pure and simple... because she felt like it.
> 
> And my large issue is that she is publicly congratulating herself on her poor decision making in a way that encourages others to do so.


There is a difference between hurting someone and mistreating them. Yes, she hurt his feelings. No, I do not think she set out to hurt his feelings, nor do I think that she is anywhere near the cold-hearted manipulator that you have painted her out to be.

And she is not congratulating herself or celebrating. She is pushing against all the "shoulds" of how she is supposed to feel. And basically saying that life will still go on and still be okay even if she isn't keeping up with all of those shoulds.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

always_alone said:


> As I said before, the stress that is the subject of this is the loss of her libido and all the pressure she feels to be sufficiently sexual and sufficiently satisfying to her h. So of course the solutions she talks about will aim at that.
> 
> How is eating take-away and hiring a maid going to make her feel sexy? How is that going to bring back her libido. It won't. It can't. So why everyone keeps pressing that as the obvious solution is beyond me.
> 
> And I stand by what I said about prioritizing her husband's libido over everything else. All through this thread she has been attacked for writing a post, for not hiring a maid, for feeling pressured to feel something that she is simply just not feeling. And for what? Tell me, please.
> 
> Because what it keeps coming back to is that she is an absolutely terrible person because she had the audacity to offer her husband an alternative route to sexual satisfaction and failed to place her husband's libido at the very top of her priority list at all times.


When he withheld himself... her libido returned.


----------



## always_alone

Fozzy said:


> Glad it worked out for them. Backing off did not work for me. Backing off resulted in zero sex for a long time. It still would.


Backing off as a tactic is typically about leveraging fear and insecurity. If it doesn't work for you, my guess is that it is because your wife won't or can't be leveraged this way. This is not necessarily a bad thing. Having sex from that place isn't really, at least IMHO, a lasting or healthy way to an active sex life.

Indeed, it is exactly the sort of thing that leads to what this blogger was writing about when she said she hated having sex when she didn't want it. 

Blossom didn't clarify in the way she recounted Sarah's response, but I got the distinct impression that the way he backed off was actually to stop pressuring her with the "if you *really* loved me" (etc) stuff. Certainly when she said she had to "go big and in his face" to get him to listen, it makes it sound like he was actually responding to her needs, rather than going "dark" in the typical 180-style advocated here. But if that wasn't your problem in the first place, though, it isn't going to be very helpful for the solution either.

Sorry, Fozzy. Hope you do find some kind of solution.


----------



## Icey181

Weird that.

It almost sounds like after she offered the "Free Pass" he suddenly no longer pursued sex with her…

…and her libido magically came back.

Clearly, there was no underlying fear that he might actually go through with it that motivated her. :wink2:

I am sorry, but if she really has built up a ton of resentment over sexual pressure to the point of losing her libido him simply pulling back a little bit is not going to restore it.

Something else happened and my money is on an unexpected reaction from him.


----------



## always_alone

Blossom Leigh said:


> When he withheld himself... her libido returned.


Yes, but didn't you also say that she had to "go big and in his face" to get him to listen?

Isn't that much more like listening to exactly what she was asking for than simply holding back?


----------



## Cosmos

Blossom Leigh said:


> When he withheld himself... her libido returned.


Which would indicate that this is where the real pressure was coming from. As soon as the pressure was relieved - hey presto!


----------



## Blossom Leigh

always_alone said:


> Yes, but didn't you also say that she had to "go big and in his face" to get him to listen?
> 
> Isn't that much more like listening to exactly what she was asking for than simply holding back?


*Her words to be clear*

"He backed off. And I wanted him more."

*and it was after...*

"Haha, just telling him in essence- dude! We're out of options! I've had it! 

Somehow, that worked.

In the simplest form, *apparently, I wasn't communicating exactly what I felt*. I mean, offering a free pass is about as bad as it gets before talking about the big "D" right?!
Let's just say, *it was dramatic, but he finally got it! Something clicked.*"


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Cosmos said:


> Which would indicate that this is where the real pressure was coming from. As soon as the pressure was relieved - hey presto!


Almost....

Her own pressures were already high and his piled on top and in an intense way. So that is still an issue but she is working on resolving some of that.


----------



## Tall Average Guy

always_alone said:


> Because what it keeps coming back to is that she is an absolutely terrible person because she had the audacity to offer her husband an alternative route to sexual satisfaction and failed to place her husband's libido at the very top of her priority list at all times.


Actually, what it keeps coming down to is that she offered up a caricature to create page views.


----------



## Cosmos

Blossom Leigh said:


> *Her words to be clear*
> 
> "He backed off. And I wanted him more."
> 
> *and it was after...*
> 
> "Haha, just telling him in essence- dude! We're out of options! I've had it!
> 
> Somehow, that worked.
> 
> In the simplest form, *apparently, I wasn't communicating exactly what I felt*. I mean, offering a free pass is about as bad as it gets before talking about the big "D" right?!
> Let's just say, *it was dramatic, but he finally got it! Something clicked.*"


Yes I can see how this would work. Rather than feeling continually 'force fed,' she regained her appetite and was ready to 'eat' again.

Just a pity that she needed (or chose) to employ shock tactics to get there...


----------



## Fozzy

always_alone said:


> Backing off as a tactic is typically about leveraging fear and insecurity. If it doesn't work for you, my guess is that it is because your wife won't or can't be leveraged this way. This is not necessarily a bad thing. Having sex from that place isn't really, at least IMHO, a lasting or healthy way to an active sex life.
> 
> Indeed, it is exactly the sort of thing that leads to what this blogger was writing about when she said she hated having sex when she didn't want it.
> 
> Blossom didn't clarify in the way she recounted Sarah's response, but I got the distinct impression that the way he backed off was actually to stop pressuring her with the "if you *really* loved me" (etc) stuff. Certainly when she said she had to "go big and in his face" to get him to listen, it makes it sound like he was actually responding to her needs, rather than going "dark" in the typical 180-style advocated here. But if that wasn't your problem in the first place, though, it isn't going to be very helpful for the solution either.
> 
> Sorry, Fozzy. Hope you do find some kind of solution.


It's not as bad as all that. I wouldn't say our sex life is through the roof by any means, but it's better than it was. We usually have sex a couple times a month now, as long as I initiate it. Currently we're at a little over a month dry because I haven't initiated anything. My drive has tanked quite a bit over the last year so it doesn't make me crazy like it used to. The hard part was just letting go of all those years of resentment and accepting that I played a big part in creating the situation. I honestly don't think my wife will ever be "hot" for me, and i'm starting to be more ok with that.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

She confirmed that her libido came back fast. She had tremendous resentment and hate built up and when he responded to her, her shut down libido revived.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Cosmos said:


> Yes I can see how this would work. Rather than feeling continually 'force fed,' she regained her appetite and was ready to 'eat' again.
> 
> Just a pity that she needed (or chose) to employ shock tactics to get there...


That is a very accurate picture comparison.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

I'm glad I reached out to her. Its helping me feel different about her character. We have had a great conversation today and have been talking since this morning.


----------



## Cosmos

Blossom Leigh said:


> She confirmed that her libido came back fast. She had tremendous resentment and hate built up and when he responded to her, her shut down libido revived.


It's my guess that his focus on sex perhaps made her other pressures seem completely overwhelming. His reaction to the hall pass scenario made her feel loved and valued and better able to cope.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Cosmos said:


> It's my guess that his focus on sex perhaps made her other pressures seem completely overwhelming. His reaction to the hall pass scenario made her feel loved and valued and better able to cope.


This is possible.


----------



## Wazza

EllisRedding said:


> Well that is boring lol. I was hoping more of a Husband took the pass and bagged 3 ladies (and one dude), Blogger confessed that two of the kids aren't actually his, etc... and ultimately we find out the blogger is really a 25 yr old man living in his parent's basement ... what a bummer :crying:


Could still happen.


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> There is a difference between hurting someone and mistreating them. Yes, she hurt his feelings. No, I do not think she set out to hurt his feelings, nor do I think that she is anywhere near the cold-hearted manipulator that you have painted her out to be.
> 
> And she is not congratulating herself or celebrating. She is pushing against all the "shoulds" of how she is supposed to feel. And basically saying that life will still go on and still be okay even if she isn't keeping up with all of those shoulds.


I don't think she set out to hurt his feelings. 

I just don't think his feelings about it occurred to her at all.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Fozzy

marduk said:


> I don't think she set out to hurt his feelings.
> 
> I just don't think his feelings about it occurred to her at all.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I'd disagree slightly. I think his feelings were taken into account, I just think she misread his feelings.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Her exasperation was intense by the time she popped off at him like that.


----------



## Marduk

Fozzy said:


> I'd disagree slightly. I think his feelings were taken into account, I just think she misread his feelings.


Perhaps.

Evidenced by what?


----------



## EllisRedding

Blossom Leigh said:


> She confirmed that her libido came back fast. She had tremendous resentment and hate built up and when he responded to her, her shut down libido revived.


So basically the blog post was meant more for shock factor to get views/clicks :grin2:


----------



## Blossom Leigh

EllisRedding said:


> So basically the blog post was meant more for shock factor to get views/clicks :grin2:


It was raw venting at the time.


----------



## EllisRedding

Blossom Leigh said:


> It was raw venting at the time.


Yeah, just seems like parts were left out/added to conveniently add spice to the article. Not saying her problems aren't real, but when writing for a blog you are mindfully aware of getting views.


----------



## Icey181

EllisRedding said:


> Yeah, just seems like parts were left out/added to conveniently add spice to the article. Not saying her problems aren't real, but when writing for a blog you are mindfully aware of getting views.


You should also be aware of the effect such a blog has on people looking for advice.

An "I had a lot of resentments piled up I was not dealing with and hubby was not getting it," is distinctly different from "I offered him a Free Pass, because it's just sex."

And the initial "outburst" with the Free Pass still feels like emotional manipulation to me. The entire content and message from that original post feels just _wrong_.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

I got the impression its not a paid blog, not sure


----------



## EllisRedding

Blossom Leigh said:


> I got the impression its not a paid blog, not sure


There could be ad revenue. It can be used to promote herself on other sites, etc... there are plenty of ways to monetize. As well, for some, the attention (i.e. page views) they get is enough to drive them.

I would love to debate this more Blossom, but I just checked my spam box and I have an email from Layla and the subject is "I am physically attracted to you!". I don't know who this is, but she must be serious if she was able to find out my email address. Wish me luck, fingers crossed, this could be the one!!! ray:


----------



## Blossom Leigh

I want to say going forward that I will represent her as accurately as I can until she speaks for herself, which is still a possibility here. My statement will not necessarily be my own viewpoint, but what I understood of her mindset after talking with her today.

I will also say where I would have done things differently if warranted.


----------



## Fozzy

marduk said:


> Perhaps.
> 
> Evidenced by what?


Based on what she said about "I'm doing this because I love you" and "Yes I've consider the consequences". The way I'm reading it is that she probably had the motivation in mind to try to help him out, but the fact that she didn't understand what saying something like that means to somebody who DOES bond emotionally through sex tells me that she didn't have a grasp on how his emotions work.


----------



## Wazza

EllisRedding said:


> There could be ad revenue. It can be used to promote herself on other sites, etc... there are plenty of ways to monetize. As well, for some, the attention (i.e. page views) they get is enough to drive them.
> 
> I would love to debate this more Blossom, but I just checked my spam box and I have an email from Layla and the subject is "I am physically attracted to you!". I don't know who this is, but she must be serious if she was able to find out my email address. Wish me luck, fingers crossed, this could be the one!!! ray:


After you have sorted things with Layla I have a Nigerian prince who would like to discuss a mutually beneficial business transaction with you.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

EllisRedding said:


> There could be ad revenue. It can be used to promote herself on other sites, etc... there are plenty of ways to monetize. As well, for some, the attention (i.e. page views) they get is enough to drive them.
> 
> I would love to debate this more Blossom, but I just checked my spam box and I have an email from Layla and the subject is "I am physically attracted to you!". I don't know who this is, but she must be serious if she was able to find out my email address. Wish me luck, fingers crossed, this could be the one!!! ray:


Lol!! I don't know how I missed this earlier.. but hilarious


----------



## always_alone

Tall Average Guy said:


> Actually, what it keeps coming down to is that she offered up a caricature to create page views.


But the parts that generated the most consternation were pretty authentic...

I see it as testament to just how much resentment can affect libido.


----------



## EleGirl

My take is that the article was mostly written to drive traffic to her blog. She might also get a cut from revenue on the site that article is posted.

Her site is monitorized. I'm sure that TAM drove a lot of traffic to her blog. Revenues are up. She's the last one laughing about all this. She now has a few hundred, if not a few thousand more who know about her blog.


----------



## always_alone

Fozzy said:


> Based on what she said about "I'm doing this because I love you" and "Yes I've consider the consequences". The way I'm reading it is that she probably had the motivation in mind to try to help him out, but the fact that she didn't understand what saying something like that means to somebody who DOES bond emotionally through sex tells me that she didn't have a grasp on how his emotions work.


I agree. She was speaking from frustration and resentment, not realizing how much the offer would hurt. Because he was pressing for sex, she assumed that's what he wanted: sex. JLD called it, way back in the beginning of the thread.

But I also think that women know just as well as men do what it means to bond through sex, and I think any man who has experienced that kind of sexual pressure would quite fully understand her reaction. I've seen it with my own eyes.


----------



## unblinded

Or--and I am just spitballing here--things aren't back on track with her husband, but she's had time to think about how crappy the whole situation was.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

She communicated to me that they are no longer having sex problems. She said they are "very much back on track." And described her current libido as very normal vs hypernormal of the past.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

You are correct that things were pretty bad before she pushed back so hard on him.


----------



## Mr.Fisty

Without context and a lack of information, the human mind will fill in the information to make sense of a lot of situation. Personal beliefs and experience will color in what most think her to be. It is natural for this to happen. We are a rationalizing species, not a rational one.

Once we have colored her the way we think she is, most of us will not be moved from that position.

It will tend to take extraordinary evidence to even have a chance to sway us another way.

That is the issue with working with incomplete and not entirely reliable data. And forming a belief of something as well. This thread is an example of that. With the same information, everyone has their own view of her.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

The times my H has had intense emotional pressure on me has challenged me in my composure even though I have a staunch belief in treating people with dignity even when they are being rough with me. I understand the challenge of intense pressure. If he had proved non responsive to me I would have pushed back too, but not in the same way she did.


----------



## ocotillo

always_alone said:


> ...and I think any man who has experienced that kind of sexual pressure would quite fully understand her reaction.


Gonna have to disagree at personal level, but maybe that's because I spent so many years on the other side of the issue.

Even if I hadn't through, there's an element of defeat in telling your spouse to go have sex with someone else that grates in the worst way.


----------



## Marduk

Fozzy said:


> Based on what she said about "I'm doing this because I love you" and "Yes I've consider the consequences". The way I'm reading it is that she probably had the motivation in mind to try to help him out, but the fact that she didn't understand what saying something like that means to somebody who DOES bond emotionally through sex tells me that she didn't have a grasp on how his emotions work.


Here's where I struggle with that line of reasoning.

She goes into what a marriage can be besides sex. And it seems to speak to a lot of the creature comforts that she gets out of it. Including security.

My reaction to that is that she wanted those comforts and wanted to give up on what he wanted in return. A fixation on herself. Which is magnified by her fixating on her love for him, not in what his emotional response would be.

It's again fixated on her feelings about it (her loss of libido), her feelings about the marriage (I want everything else), and her feelings of love for him (as opposed to how we is feeling about all this).

Now, she may be flooded because of stress or pressure. But again, that concept is undermined by her not wanting that pressure relieved in other areas.

I really, really, struggle thinking this is a giant cry for help. It's possible...

But I just see a lot of emotional navel gazing happening here.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

I would have cleaned up my side of the street first and then if his pressure was too much I would have addressed him.

One thing I said to her yesterday that resonated with her was that childbirth with extended nursing lowers libido by design and it sounds like his impatience during that time compounded that natural process, emotionally shutting her down until she pushed back giving herself emotional room again.


----------



## Buddy400

EllisRedding said:


> So basically the blog post was meant more for shock factor to get views/clicks :grin2:


Yes. But, there were quite a few comments from women thanking her for voicing what they felt.

So, the problem may have been overblown for the sake of getting clicks (nothing wrong with that). But, many women actually felt that way and agreed with her response. 

That's real.


----------



## EleGirl

We live in a society where people make much of their private lives very public. And they do it to drum up money sometimes. Look at the Maury Povich Show.

With the added info that Blossom got from the author, it sounds like she was at a breaking point. She might not have worded it well. She might have been falling apart because after many times trying to get through to him, nothing was working. Maybe she was on the verge of giving up. So she did something radical.

And it seems that her radical action was what worked. It's what got her husband to realize that he needed to back off some and giver her some emotional space.

Good for her. Heck, good for him too. They worked it out.


----------



## Tall Average Guy

always_alone said:


> But the parts that generated the most consternation were pretty authentic...


I am not sure that is the case. Some likely were, but which were authentic and which were for effect is left up to the reader to interpret through their lens.



> I see it as testament to just how much resentment can affect libido.


What actually happened, perhaps, but not what she posted or wrote about for the public.


----------



## Marduk

As long as we're speculating, perhaps her husband hit her with the emotional clue stick and made her realize that he's a human being, too.

What could very well have happened is that he started standing up for himself and his needs, with a resultant increase of respect and attraction on her part.


----------



## EleGirl

Buddy400 said:


> Yes. But, there were quite a few comments from women thanking her for voicing what they felt.
> 
> So, the problem may have been overblown for the sake of getting clicks (nothing wrong with that). But, many women actually felt that way and agreed with her response.
> 
> That's real.


So what if some women agreed with her. That is their thought at that moment in time. If they now follow her blog, it might become clear that she and her husband worked it out. I hope that when she gets back from vacation MissGuided Mama will post about that.


Look at all the anti woman, stuff in the PUA. Look at MMSLP. We are told that men read it but the parts that are insulting to women are not taken seriously by these guys. It just helps them get their minds into the right place. 

How is this any different?


----------



## Cosmos

Buddy400 said:


> Yes. But, there were quite a few comments from women thanking her for voicing what they felt.
> 
> So, the problem may have been overblown for the sake of getting clicks (nothing wrong with that). But, many women actually felt that way and agreed with her response.
> 
> That's real.


Perhaps her blog validates how some women feel in their own relationships. 

Frankly, even though I certainly don't condone what she said to her husband, the main thrust of her blog was less shocking to me than some of the misogynistic things that I've read in blogs targeting male audiences.


----------



## ocotillo

Mr.Fisty said:


> Without context and a lack of information, the human mind will fill in the information to make sense of a lot of situation. Personal beliefs and experience will color in what most think her to be. It is natural for this to happen. We are a rationalizing species, not a rational one.


That's true enough, but I'd add that right or wrong, people (Including many if not most prospective employers) *are* going to judge you by your internet personae.


----------



## Tall Average Guy

EleGirl said:


> With the added info that Blossom got from the author, it sounds like she was at a breaking point. She might not have worded it well. She might have been falling apart because after many times trying to get through to him, nothing was working. Maybe she was on the verge of giving up. So she did something radical.
> 
> And it seems that her radical action was what worked. It's what got her husband to realize that he needed to back off some and giver her some emotional space.
> 
> Good for her. Heck, good for him too. They worked it out.


That is not my interpretation. Based on the article she wrote for the world to read, her radical idea (him sleeping with other women) did not work. Her libido was still low and she still did not want to sleep with him even after she offered this up.

It was only after she had a very frank and blunt discussion (which she did not write in an article for the world to read) that he understood the need to back off. It is good that she had it and good that he understood it. 

But I don't see that type of discussion as being all that radical. Which is why it won't be mentioned in an article by her or in her blog - because it just won't drive the clicks.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Some of her words...

"I think the loss of libido was completely emotional/mental for sure. I hated my husband *for not understanding me and responding appropriately/adequately*.

I hated myself for a lot- in turn hating everyone and everything (including sex)."


----------



## Tall Average Guy

EleGirl said:


> So what if some women agreed with her. That is their thought at that moment in time. If they now follow her blog, it might become clear that she and her husband worked it out. I hope that when she gets back from vacation MissGuided Mama will post about that.
> 
> 
> Look at all the anti woman, stuff in the PUA. Look at MMSLP. We are told that men read it but the parts that are insulting to women are not taken seriously by these guys. It just helps them get their minds into the right place.
> 
> How is this any different?


No different at all. Of course the flip side also applies, but I won't hold my breath waiting for those defending MGM to suddenly look at MMSLP in a different light.


----------



## Cosmos

Blossom Leigh said:


> Some of her words...
> 
> "I think the loss of libido was completely emotional/mental for sure. I hated my husband *for not understanding me and responding appropriately/adequately*.
> 
> I hated myself for a lot- in turn hating everyone and everything (including sex)."


And perhaps her blog will in fact reflect this when she comes back from vacation and is able to update it.

It's good that they got to talk things through.


----------



## Cosmos

Tall Average Guy said:


> No different at all. Of course the flip side also applies, but I won't hold my breath waiting for those defending MGM to suddenly look at MMSLP in a different light.


Or those who so vehemently defend MMSLP to try to _understand _rather than vilify MGM...

If we did I fear we would asphyxiate ourselves in the process


----------



## Buddy400

EleGirl said:


> So what if some women agreed with her. That is their thought at that moment in time. If they now follow her blog, it might become clear that she and her husband worked it out. I hope that when she gets back from vacation MissGuided Mama will post about that.
> 
> 
> Look at all the anti woman, stuff in the PUA. Look at MMSLP. We are told that men read it but the parts that are insulting to women are not taken seriously by these guys. It just helps them get their minds into the right place.
> 
> How is this any different?


You're demonstrating your ability to read into comments things that aren't there.

My post was in response to the idea that, since the article looks to have been overblown in a sensationalist manner to generate clicks, it wasn't "real".


----------



## EllisRedding

Buddy400 said:


> You're demonstrating your ability to read into comments things that aren't there.
> 
> My post was in response to the idea that, since the article looks to have been overblown in a sensationalist manner to generate clicks, it wasn't "real".


Just to clarify, my comment wasn't about it being real or not real, it was about her emphasizing or omitting certain parts in her blog in order to drive more clicks/shock factor, etc...


----------



## Blossom Leigh

marduk said:


> As long as we're speculating, perhaps her husband hit her with the emotional clue stick and made her realize that he's a human being, too.
> 
> What could very well have happened is that he started standing up for himself and his needs, with a resultant increase of respect and attraction on her part.


Mutual empathy lacking on both sides is a very real possibility. So, very valid point.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Cosmos said:


> And perhaps her blog will in fact reflect this when she comes back from vacation and is able to update it.
> 
> It's good that they got to talk things through.


She doesn't update. She will respond to direct questions emailed to her, but not update the blog.


----------



## Buddy400

EllisRedding said:


> Just to clarify, my comment wasn't about it being real or not real, it was about her emphasizing or omitting certain parts in her blog in order to drive more clicks/shock factor, etc...


Understood


----------



## Icey181

Blossom Leigh said:


> She doesn't update. She will respond to direct questions emailed to her, but not update the blog.


Interesting.

In other words she wants the world to think that her "Free Pass" suggestion was both appropriate and effective, despite clear indications otherwise. 

I am just happy that the handful of "I totally agree" posts were drowned out by "You're an idiot" comments on the blog itself.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Icey181 said:


> Interesting.
> 
> In other words she wants the world to think that her "Free Pass" suggestion was both appropriate and effective, despite clear indications otherwise.
> 
> I am just happy that the handful of "I totally agree" posts were drowned out by "You're an idiot" comments on the blog itself.


Her words from yesterday during the course of our conversation....

"With my writing, I just try to be raw and in the moment. I don't really

post updates to my stories- because as a whole, readers don't give a ****. So it's not worth my time necessarily as I don't make money off them. It sounds bad, but true.




I do enjoy taking the time to update readers when they reach out to me directly as you have"


----------



## stevehowefan

Man, a lot of this rings true in years past for me. Seven years of affection-less marriage, coupled with an emotionless marriage at the same time, drained me. I complained and whined. I questioned, to her face, rather she loved me. She told me two things that haunt me to this day, words spoken over three years ago: "I am not attracted to you." Ouch, that one hurt. "Would you be happy if you had sex with someone else?" The lowest. No, I would not be happy with that. Sex with someone else would've been meaningless without love. I wanted her to want me. We have been married for 11 years. Sex at first was every night, almost tiring. 

Sex, with emotional availability, was what I craved. I got the quizzical "gay" remarks when I mentioned how important that was to me. "Why can't you just be happy that I am having sex with you?" Because sex without emotions means very little. I don't want to be a box that gets checked at the end of the day: brushed my teeth this morning, went to work, cleaned up after supper, gave kids a bath, had sex with husband. In all reality, my wife looked at me as beta. She didn't know what it meant to be beta, nor did I. I exhibited all the signs, though. She felt like she had to "raise" me too, as I suffered tremendously from my tour in Iraq. I was a functional pill head, in part due to the physical pain from the IED and in part due to the mental pain of the same thing. I became OCD about cleanliness. I had endless amounts of energy one moment and drained the next. The fix.

The fix, at the moment, has been me getting snipped. I did it mostly because I wanted my wife off of birth control. That stuff is poison. It's poison to marriages and poison to the body. I firmly believe that my wife being on Yaz had a lot to due with her lack of emotion and affection. We had a come-to-Jesus-meeting in Jan of 2013. I was on the verge of leaving. I couldn't take it anymore, this emotionless and affection-less person was no longer my wife. In my mind, I was gone. Sure, I came back to my senses quickly but always had it in the back of my mind that I was going to give it "x amount of months" to be fixed. The vasectomy was in Nov. of 2012. She had been off the pills a few weeks prior. 

Once the pills left her system, over the course of several months, I saw the old wife. She became sassy again, had emotions (not always good lol), and seemed to dig me more. In the mean-time, I worked on me. I began to clean up my act too. I set the pills down. I began to work out to replace my need for pills. I stopped being beta (whining about sex, cleaning the house all the time, complaining etc). It's been two and a half years now and while sex isn't like it used to be when we first met, it's about 80% what it was. She wants to more now. She wants to be held now more (that really makes me happy). She just plain, all out needs me more. 


Mean in sexless marriages, it can get better.


----------



## Cosmos

@ stevehowefan

BC can play havoc with a woman's hormones - and after a while 'happy / chill pills' can do more harm than good. I'm glad that you and your W have managed to get things back on track


----------



## always_alone

ocotillo said:


> Gonna have to disagree at personal level, but maybe that's because I spent so many years on the other side of the issue.


All I know is that my SO responded to sexual pressure by becoming totally turned off and belligerent.

Many men get ED in response to performance pressure.

The "hall pass offer" is but one way of manifesting this, but I think it is pretty obvious that pressure and sex do not go well together for either gender.


----------



## always_alone

Tall Average Guy said:


> No different at all. Of course the flip side also applies, but I won't hold my breath waiting for those defending MGM to suddenly look at MMSLP in a different light.


At least MGM doesn't advocate demeaning men or raping them. Or ensuring their ongoing submission because "that's what they like".

Indeed, she said absolutely nothing at all bad about her husband, and absolutely not a single generalization about men. All of it was her own feelings, own reactions, own thoughts about her own relationship. She didn't even advocate her hall pass offer or anything whatsoever to other women, that was all read into it by offended posters.

So, really, the two works aren't comparable at all, really. One is a personal reflective entry, much like a public diary; the other is said to be a system to solve all problems for men.


----------



## always_alone

Icey181 said:


> Interesting.
> 
> In other words she wants the world to think that her "Free Pass" suggestion was both appropriate and effective, despite clear indications otherwise.
> 
> I am just happy that the handful of "I totally agree" posts were drowned out by "You're an idiot" comments on the blog itself.


It was effective! It made him stand up and take notice of her needs.

Personally, I'm much, much too selfish to offer a hall pass to my SO. If he gets to get some on the side, so do I. Interestingly, when I put forth the idea of opening up the relationship, he wasn't even the slightest bit offended.

So, you know, the reactions here may not in fact apply across the board.


----------



## always_alone

marduk said:


> Here's where I struggle with that line of reasoning.
> 
> She goes into what a marriage can be besides sex. And it seems to speak to a lot of the creature comforts that she gets out of it. Including security.
> 
> My reaction to that is that she wanted those comforts and wanted to give up on what he wanted in return. A fixation on herself. Which is magnified by her fixating on her love for him, not in what his emotional response would be.


And, of course, it's perfectly obvious that all of these other things are completely irrelevant and unimportant to him, and are of absolutely no consequence because it is only *her* that wants them, and all he wants and needs is his libido satisfied? If she is not doing that, she is doing nothing? 

And if she is not doing that, she has absolutely no right to have any needs or ever talk about them?

Just trying to figure out what exactly your take is here. :scratchhead:


----------



## Cosmos

always_alone said:


> All I know is that my SO responded to sexual pressure by becoming totally turned off and belligerent.
> 
> Many men get ED in response to performance pressure.
> 
> The "hall pass offer" is but one way of manifesting this, but I think it is pretty obvious that pressure and sex do not go well together for either gender.


AA, my ex-H's way of dealing with it was by telling me that I was imagining things because we were having regular sex! I was suffering from post-natal depression at the time (caused in part by our sexless marriage), and I truly started to believe I was losing it... It wasn't until we both sat in front of a psychiatrist, who yelled at him and told him to tell me the truth, that he finally admitted that we hadn't had sex in over 6 months... I later discovered that he was asexual and divorced him.


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> And, of course, it's perfectly obvious that all of these other things are completely irrelevant and unimportant to him, and are of absolutely no consequence because it is only *her* that wants them, and all he wants and needs is his libido satisfied? If she is not doing that, she is doing nothing?
> 
> And if she is not doing that, she has absolutely no right to have any needs or ever talk about them?
> 
> Just trying to figure out what exactly your take is here. :scratchhead:


It's entirely possible, but it's not what she wrote. What she did write is that he travels a lot. So I can see some aspects of that. 

However it's pretty counterbalanced by her glowing review of him. 

I still struggle with her finding him repulsive and yet thrilling in the sack.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## ocotillo

always_alone said:


> ....but I think it is pretty obvious that pressure and sex do not go well together for either gender.


I do understand your point, AA. There is nothing romantic about nagging.

Maybe it's a question of how we define pressure and whether it can be viewed as, "Good" or "Bad," "Healthy" or "Unhealthy."


----------



## jld

marduk said:


> It's entirely possible, but it's not what she wrote. What she did write is that he travels a lot. So I can see some aspects of that.
> 
> However it's pretty counterbalanced by her glowing review of him.
> 
> I still struggle with her finding him repulsive and yet thrilling in the sack.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Didn't someone here once say you can like ice cream without wanting it every day?

And imagine if ice cream trucks were stalking you. Wouldn't that put a damper on your enthusiasm?


----------



## Fozzy

Cosmos said:


> AA, my ex-H's way of dealing with it was by telling me that I was imagining things because we were having regular sex! I was suffering from post-natal depression at the time (caused in part by our sexless marriage), and I truly started to believe I was losing it... It wasn't until we both sat in front of a psychiatrist, who yelled at him and told him to tell me the truth, that he finally admitted that we hadn't had sex in over 6 months... I later discovered that he was asexual and divorced him.


Cosmos, was he deliberately gaslighting or did he really believe it?


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> Didn't someone here once say you can like ice cream without wanting it every day?
> 
> And imagine if ice cream trucks were stalking you. Wouldn't that put a damper on your enthusiasm?


No, I think I would get fat.


----------



## Cosmos

Fozzy said:


> Cosmos, was he deliberately gaslighting or did he really believe it?


I think he was perhaps playing for time, Fozzy... Perhaps he didn't even understand it himself and thought he would somehow 'get over it' - who knows?


----------



## Marduk

jld, I was specifically referencing her finding sex with him repulsive and she hated doing it... and yet when they do it, it's amazing.

Which is it?

I suspect sometimes it's the former and sometimes it's the latter...

But, again, there is ZERO mention of how he finds it. Good, bad, indifferent, insufficient... just that he wants more, and that's pressure.


----------



## Marduk

I'm so sorry, Cosmos.


----------



## Fozzy

marduk said:


> I still struggle with her finding him repulsive and yet thrilling in the sack.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Ron Jeremy, anyone?


----------



## Marduk

Fozzy said:


> Ron Jeremy, anyone?


I mean I've heard "I hate you, you disgust me!" Before AND after a few very willing rolls in the hay...

But that's probably just because I can be an *******.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

Why is she supposed to be his mother? She has two little kids and likely does not want a third.

It is good when she is ready for it, like ice cream is good when you are craving it. Force fed, to most of us, I would guess, not so much.


----------



## Fozzy

Sex isn't like ice cream. It's like Jello. There's always room for Jello.


----------



## jld

Fozzy said:


> Sex isn't like ice cream. It's like Jello. There's always room for Jello.




I guess not for everyone, Fozzy.


----------



## Cosmos

jld said:


> Why is she supposed to be his mother? She has two little kids and likely does not want a third.
> 
> It is good when she is ready for it, like ice cream is good when you are craving it. Force fed, to most of us, I would guess, not so much.


She did say that he wanted sex all the time, so perhaps she found it great in moderation but 'repulsive' when feeling compelled to OD.

I think a lot of the problem was possibly his lengthy absences and not really getting time to reconnect emotionally - just physically.


----------



## Cosmos

FrenchFry said:


> I just choked on my water. It's begun!


Not on your sweet life, FF. 0


----------



## always_alone

ocotillo said:


> I do understand your point, AA. There is nothing romantic about nagging.
> 
> Maybe it's a question of how we define pressure and whether it can be viewed as, "Good" or "Bad," "Healthy" or "Unhealthy."


What is healthy pressure when it gets comes to sex?


----------



## Blossom Leigh

always_alone said:


> What is healthy pressure when it gets comes to sex?


Well two come to mind....

When my H gets very aggressive after me and intense teasing....


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Her not caring or putting any effort into updating her Blog I feel is "just wrong"...if she cared about any of the people who identify with her struggles ... she'd take the time to do this....instead of leaving them hanging in profane rantings.... I just can't find anything respectable in that... Take the time & give your readers the MEAT of the issue , what you learned from it , and how it got resolved.. 

How would any husband here feel if his wife ranted like this on her Blog, with all the angry backlash....here you work through it.. but she doesn't feel it necessary to speak of THE GOOD.. the healing you both found... It just leaves him looking foolish to stay with her.. I do not understand this woman at all.


----------



## farsidejunky

SimplyAmorous said:


> Her not caring or putting any effort into updating her Blog I feel is "just wrong"...if she cared about any of the people who identify with her struggles ... she'd take the time to do this....instead of leaving them hanging in profane rantings.... I just can't find anything respectable in that... Take the time & give your readers the MEAT of the issue , what you learned from it , and how it got resolved..
> 
> How would any husband here feel if his wife ranted like this on her Blog, with all the angry backlash....here you work through it.. but she doesn't feel it necessary to speak of THE GOOD.. the healing you both found... It just leaves him looking foolish to stay with her.. I do not understand this woman at all.


My emotions tell me this too, SA.

But my mind tells me that the line between reality and charade with her is not so clear cut.


----------



## Wazza

jld said:


> It is good when she is ready for it, like ice cream is good when you are craving it. Force fed, to most of us, I would guess, not so much.


It's a good analogy, but it needs to be complete. 

Two people can only have ice cream at the same time. The further apart their appetites are, the harder it will be to find common ground. Add in ice cream being a need rather than a luxury, for some at least.


----------



## EllisRedding

always_alone said:


> What is healthy pressure when it gets comes to sex?


My wife sending me dirty text messages while I am in the middle of doing mid year reviews at work. Not only do I have to refocus on what I am doing, but I also have to strategically reposition myself so as to not appear "awkward" when I stand up out of my chair. Finally, there is the pressure to deliver the goods when I finally get home. To alleviate some of the pressure, before any monkey wrestling begins I always state the following disclaimer "Past performance does not guarantee future results."


----------



## jld

Wazza said:


> It's a good analogy, but it needs to be complete.
> 
> Two people can only have ice cream at the same time. The further apart their appetites are, the harder it will be to find common ground. Add in ice cream being a need rather than a luxury, for some at least.


Win/Win, or No Deal. His pressuring her resulted in No Deal. 

Luckily, it seems he realized that, and backed off, allowing space to create a Win/Win.


----------



## Wazza

jld said:


> Win/Win, or No Deal. His pressuring her resulted in No Deal.
> 
> Luckily, it seems he realized that, and backed off, allowing space to create a Win/Win.


No longer interested in the specifics of the blog, since it's clear to me it is click bait and therefore at the very least selective and colourful in its use of truth.

By my values, if a couple cannot find a compromise that works for them....for both of them....there is a serious problem. If you believe that one solution will work for every couple we will need to agree to disagree. I can't see how just backing off will solve the problem when there are seriously mismatched libidos. But I agree it is one approach to consider.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

always_alone said:


> *What is healthy pressure when it gets comes to sex?*


Maybe my husband is just NOT normal.. we were talking about this this morning.. due to this thread .. he never minded the pressure.. *and I DID pressure *... my drive was 3 times higher for 8 months long.. even if I was a little too much to handle for a time...he still loved it.. probably closest thing to his fantasy.. He didn't get bored or start to resent me...it drew us closer. 

He would feel bad if he couldn't get it up.. but we had Viagra on hand.. so no problem.. and I was careful to not push TOO MUCH .... though if I had my way...we would have been at it 3 times a day.. I settled for once a day.. I went out of my way to turn him on- with novelty, flirting, I became an his porn star .... he welcomed it with open arms... 

This is just another reason I feel men have a higher sex drive over women (generally speaking) because most of them wouldn't be complaining about something like this.. unless they've got other things going on (ED, lost attraction, on meds to lower their libido, have a porn addiction, etc)... or are resentful - and yeah... this can cause resentment too, but in most cases, other things are at play...

In fact when my drive started slowing down.. he was sad about it..making a comment that blew me away one morning... (yeah I am speaking out of my own experience here - which is what everyone else is doing anyway).... 

If my husband is not normal .. I am very thankful for it, which I have told him many times over. 



> *Bugged said*:* Foolish? why foolish...?*


 Just because you think it's Ok to go off on your husband LIKE THIS.. telling him to go Fvck someone else.. doesn't mean that others think it's OK behavior... I've said this already Post #2.. I have also given my husband's thoughts on how he would feel... he feels the man is foolish to stay with her.. 

If I EVER talked to my husband like that, he'd never touch me again.. he'd feel I hated him.. the love between us would have been lost.. there are just some things you don't do to your spouse.. if you still love them.. It astounds me how many women are defending this woman's behavior.. but whatever.


----------



## always_alone

Personal said:


> It's only pressure when one doesn't want it.


Yes, that's what I was thinking.


----------



## Cosmos

SimplyAmorous said:


> * Just because you think it's Ok to go off on your husband LIKE THIS.. telling him to go Fvck someone else.. doesn't mean that others think it's OK behavior...* I've said this already Post #2.. I have also given my husband's thoughts on how he would feel... he feels the man is foolish to stay with her..
> 
> If I EVER talked to my husband like that, he'd never touch me again.. he'd feel I hated him.. the love between us would have been lost.. there are just some things you don't do to your spouse.. if you still love them.. *It astounds me how many women are defending this woman's behavior.. but whatever.*


I don't think anyone here has condoned what she said to her H. Regarding her loss of desire, it isn't a case of defending her but trying to understand why she felt the way she did. Analyzing the cause of a problem can go a long way to resolving it.


----------



## EllisRedding

SimplyAmorous said:


> Her not caring or putting any effort into updating her Blog I feel is "just wrong"...if she cared about any of the people who identify with her struggles ... she'd take the time to do this....instead of leaving them hanging in profane rantings.... I just can't find anything respectable in that... Take the time & give your readers the MEAT of the issue , what you learned from it , and how it got resolved..
> 
> How would any husband here feel if his wife ranted like this on her Blog, with all the angry backlash....here you work through it.. but she doesn't feel it necessary to speak of THE GOOD.. the healing you both found... It just leaves him looking foolish to stay with her.. I do not understand this woman at all.


C'mon SA, how boring would that be. "Maybe I overreacted slightly with my go fvck someone else statement, but we had a long talk and now the sex that once repulsed me I am back to enjoying." Snoozer ... Might as well just shut down the blog and call it a career ....


----------



## always_alone

SimplyAmorous said:


> This is just another reason I feel men have a higher sex drive over women (generally speaking) because most of them wouldn't be complaining about something like this.. unless they've got other things going on (ED, lost attraction, on meds to lower their libido, have a porn addiction, etc)... or are resentful - and yeah... this can cause resentment too, but in most cases, other things are at play...


Well, and that's just it, SA. They wouldn't complain about having lots of sex, if they want lots of sex. But if they have ED, or a lower drive, or a loss of attraction, or resentment of unfair expectations, or various health conditions, or on various types of medications, or can't take Viagra, or are being made to feel less than because of the pressure or, or, or, or, or....

There are hosts of reasons why men will be put off by pressure to have sex, and when you add them all up, it amounts to a whole lot of men. 

As for defending the blogger, my only reason I jumped in is because it astounded me how almost everyone was totally trashing her for failing to place her husband's libido as the number one priority in her life. I mean, really? She blurts out one hurtful phrase at a point when she is filled with resentment and frustration, and that alone means she should be dumped, never spoken to again, too selfish, narcissistic, awful for words?

No wonder she was exploding from the pressure! It's bloody hard to be that perfect, and always putting someone else's needs before your own.


----------



## jld

SA, you and Mr. SA have a great marriage. You are sensitive and kind to each other. You really care about each other's feelings.

You have mentioned how the first 19 years of your marriage your husband's drive was greater than yours. But he never pressured you, never begged or whined or made you feel guilty in any way. You also wish he had spoken up more.

I think, for Sarah, the pressure she felt was just overwhelming. She felt he was bearing down on her, and it was like the steam valve erupted in response.

Perhaps if Sarah's husband had been able to handle things with more grace, like Mr. SA did, she would not have felt desperate enough to say the things she did. 

You mentioned a few days ago that if I were married to a man like your husband, I would never raise my voice, either. I think you're spot on. Your husband is so kind and attentive, who ever would? 

I think different marriages have different dynamics. I think it would be great if I never yelled at my husband. It would be even better if he did not provoke it. 

At any rate, they seem to have worked things out. And she seems pretty open, at least as Blossom has described her conversations with her.

Fozzy, did you ever expect so much to come from your one opening post?


----------



## farsidejunky

jld said:


> Win/Win, or No Deal. His pressuring her resulted in No Deal.
> 
> Luckily, it seems he realized that, and backed off, allowing space to create a Win/Win.


In the moment, he is in a lose/lose scenario. He sees option 1 (subtle pressure) and option 2 (do nothing), which are both losers. Until his eyes are opened, those really appear to be it. I speak from experience on this one. 

I can understand why he would choose option 1, because knowing the only choices you see are losers, he is making the choice where at least he feels like he is going down fighting for his needs.

Make no mistake, I understand there is still option 3 (active listening) and option 4 (destabilizing) out there, and probably others. 

I was pigeon holed into 1 and 2 before I came to TAM.


----------



## jld

farsidejunky said:


> In the moment, he is in a lose/lose scenario. He sees option 1 (subtle pressure) and option 2 (do nothing), which are both losers. Until his eyes are opened, those really appear to be it. I speak from experience on this one.
> 
> I can understand why he would choose option 1, because knowing the only choices you see are losers, he is making the choice where at least he feels like he is going down fighting for his needs.
> 
> Make no mistake, I understand there is still option 3 (active listening) and option 4 (destabilizing) are out there, and probably others.
> 
> I was pigeon holed into 1 and 2 before I came to TAM.


Well, I am glad you came here and found some other options.


----------



## always_alone

Let me put it this way: my SO watches porn every day, and *I'm* supposed to see that as just a normal part of male libido, and not get all butt hurt about it. 

But *he* is perfectly entitled to be all butt hurt because I suggest he goes fvck someone else?

Sorry, does not compute.


----------



## EllisRedding

always_alone said:


> Let me put it this way: my SO watches porn every day, and *I'm* supposed to see that as just a normal part of male libido, and not get all butt hurt about it.
> 
> But *he* is perfectly entitled to be all butt hurt because I suggest he goes fvck someone else?
> 
> Sorry, does not compute.


The author's husband watches porn all day? Don't follow what you are trying to say????


----------



## jld

I think she is wondering why only his feelings seem to matter.


----------



## EllisRedding

jld said:


> I think she is wondering why only his feelings seem to matter.


I guess I don't understand the scenario she painted. Who in their right mind would think that watching porn every day when in a relationship is normal/ok (unless they watch porn together)?


----------



## jld

EllisRedding said:


> I guess I don't understand the scenario she painted. Who in their right mind would think that watching porn every day when in a relationship is normal/ok (unless they watch porn together)?


I think some men do think that way.


----------



## EllisRedding

jld said:


> I think some men do think that way.


Well that is a stupid way to think lol.


----------



## jld

EllisRedding said:


> Well that is a stupid way to think lol.


Agreed.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

always_alone said:


> Let me put it this way: my SO watches porn every day, and *I'm* supposed to see that as just a normal part of male libido, and not get all butt hurt about it.
> 
> But *he* is perfectly entitled to be all butt hurt because I suggest he goes fvck someone else?
> 
> Sorry, does not compute.


Why are you tolerating that?


----------



## Cosmos

EllisRedding said:


> I guess I don't understand the scenario she painted. Who in their right mind would think that watching porn every day when in a relationship is normal/ok (unless they watch porn together)?


But it's surprising how many do think that way... When I once mentioned in a thread that neither my SO nor I are intereseted in porn, I was told that if he's telling me that he isn't watching it he's probably lying to me because "all men watch porn."

I've seen far too many women bashed on TAM for saying that they feel hurt by their partner's porn usage. The guys who do the bashing just don't seem to get that for many women their partner watching porn_ feels _like cheating and causes them to disconnect emotionally.


----------



## samyeagar

Cosmos said:


> But it's surprising how many do think that way... When I once mentioned in a thread that neither my SO nor I are intereseted in porn, I was told that if he's telling me that he isn't watching it he's probably lying to me because "*all men watch porn*."


It's quite unfortunate that old stereotypes are clung to so tightly, or more specifically, continue to be inappropriately applied to individuals in the face of contrary evidence.

I would imagine that as a population, more men occasionally watch porn than don't, so if you were to meet a random man, know nothing else about him, it is more likely than not that he is an occasional porn consumer. Once it is determined that he does not in fact watch porn, it is disingenuous to insist that he does.

That's the real problem with stereotypes...a lot of people simply don't know how to apply them correctly.


----------



## farsidejunky

always_alone said:


> Let me put it this way: my SO watches porn every day, and *I'm* supposed to see that as just a normal part of male libido, and not get all butt hurt about it.
> 
> But *he* is perfectly entitled to be all butt hurt because I suggest he goes fvck someone else?
> 
> Sorry, does not compute.


Nor should it, because you are willing where he is not. He is willingly giving his sexual energy to something other than you.

If you were refusing him, that would change things.


----------



## farsidejunky

Cosmos said:


> But it's surprising how many do think that way... When I once mentioned in a thread that neither my SO nor I are intereseted in porn, I was told that if he's telling me that he isn't watching it he's probably lying to me because "all men watch porn."
> 
> I've seen far too many women bashed on TAM for saying that they feel hurt by their partner's porn usage. The guys who do the bashing just don't seem to get that for many women their partner watching porn_ feels _like cheating and causes them to disconnect emotionally.


Consider the source of that statement, Cosmos.


----------



## always_alone

farsidejunky said:


> Nor should it, because you are willing where he is not. He is willingly giving his sexual energy to something other than you.
> 
> If you were refusing him, that would change things.


Yes, exactly. He is willingly giving his sexual energy to someone other than me. This is a very, very common scenario. And many will absolutely dig in their heels and fight for their right to do this, claiming it harms no one. It's just adding a little "variety" and "spice". 

But somehow offering someone the opportunity to give their sexual energy to a third party is the most offensive thing in the world.

I'm sorry, but it still doesn't compute.


----------



## always_alone

Bugged said:


> I'm not sure those words came from resentment...they could also come from compassion and love...even if some people will never get it..0


Agreed. I think in this case, they probably did come from at least frustration and desperation, if not exactly resentment. But I do think that the offer could in some cases come genuinely from compassion and love.


----------



## EllisRedding

always_alone said:


> Yes, exactly. He is willingly giving his sexual energy to someone other than me. This is a very, very common scenario. And many will absolutely dig in their heels and fight for their right to do this, claiming it harms no one.
> 
> But somehow offering someone the opportunity to give their sexual energy to a third party is the most offensive thing in the world.
> 
> I'm sorry, but it still doesn't compute.


I guess I still don't understand, unless someone in here is arguing for porn, how does this have to do with this thread and the discussion regarding the OPs free pass? Not saying I don't agree with your viewpoint in general, just not how it relates to what is being discussed here.


----------



## always_alone

EllisRedding said:


> I guess I still don't understand, unless someone in here is arguing for porn, how does this have to do with this thread and the discussion regarding the OPs free pass? Not saying I don't agree with your viewpoint in general, just not how it relates to what is being discussed here.


My point is that I still don't get why it's considered so awful and terrible that she offered him a hall pass. 

If it's perfectly harmless for a person to decide to add "spice" and "variety" by expending their sexual energies on others absolutely voluntarily, why is it so cruel, manipulative, selfish and terrible to suggest that maybe your spouse could go ahead and expend his sexual energies somewhere else?

I mean it is possible that her husband has never watched porn, and so maybe it doesn't apply in her case. But since they say 99.9% of guys do, I think it's a fair bet that he does as well.


----------



## ocotillo

always_alone said:


> What is healthy pressure when it gets comes to sex?


Generally speaking, I think any time there are opposing expectations in a relationship, there will be pressure in one form or another and (IMO) that's not necessarily a bad thing. For example, jld's husband, Dug, has said more than once on this forum that he believes her expectations ultimately make him a better person.

Expectations aren't always aligned when it comes to sex either. (At least in my experience..) After more than two decades of clinical sexlessness, my wife suddenly took it into her head that I should throw her over my shoulder; carry her upstairs and make passionate love to her, which is something I had about as much desire to do at that point as going to the dentist and having my teeth scraped with sharp implements. 

And even if that weren't the case, functioning at that level again is not a conscious decision that a man simply makes. The abscess in my soul needed to be lanced though and without my wife's persistence, (i.e. pressure) that never would have happened and we're certainly a happier couple today because of it.

Obviously I'm speaking entirely from my own personal experience here, but a lingering question for me (As you can probably tell) is why it seems to work so differently when the shoe is on the other foot. Dozens of women right her on TAM have said ideas of reciprocity and our spouses reasonable expectations of us are major, major turn-offs and I've seen obviously intelligent, articulate women driven right to the brink of irrationality by the very idea. Maybe this almost entirely cultural? (Men are supposed to want sex all the time don't cha know...)


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> Why is she supposed to be his mother? She has two little kids and likely does not want a third.
> 
> It is good when she is ready for it, like ice cream is good when you are craving it. Force fed, to most of us, I would guess, not so much.


I think you have that a little bit wrong.

I would ask why is _he_ supposed to be _her_ mother?

I didn't her her write anywhere that he feels pressured providing, supporting, or caring for her and their kids.


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> Yes, exactly. He is willingly giving his sexual energy to someone other than me. This is a very, very common scenario. And many will absolutely dig in their heels and fight for their right to do this, claiming it harms no one. It's just adding a little "variety" and "spice".
> 
> But somehow offering someone the opportunity to give their sexual energy to a third party is the most offensive thing in the world.
> 
> I'm sorry, but it still doesn't compute.


The way I look at it is it's not a problem, until it's a problem.

And then it's a big problem.

Some people can look at porn and masturbate as a release or add to their sex life without it impacting their sex life with their partner.

Hell, I've even seen it improve it.

When it gets to be a problem is when one or both can't just take it or leave it -- they have to have it.

And/or when one person isn't getting the sex they desire because the other is going to porn instead.

It's like booze or pot or anything else. Some people can handle it and have fun with it as mature adults, some people stumble with that.

What I do not recommend however is confusing your own anxiety about it with your partner's inability to keep it in it's place. Nobody can tell me what to do with my eyeballs or my body; however that comes with the heavy accountability that I have to keep everything in it's place -- and I'd expect a large brick upside the head from my spouse if I didn't. And vice versa.


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> But somehow offering someone the opportunity to give their sexual energy to a third party is the most offensive thing in the world.
> 
> I'm sorry, but it still doesn't compute.


Sorry, I forgot to finish my point, A_A.

I have no issue if they decide _together_ for one or both to have sex with other people. What people do with eyes wide open, I have no issues with.

What I have an issue with is how she went about it, in my view in a very passive-aggressive and manipulative way.

And then, you know, stood in front of the audience listening for applause.


----------



## always_alone

ocotillo said:


> Generally speaking, I think any time there are opposing expectations in a relationship, there will be pressure in one form or another and (IMO) that's not necessarily a bad thing. For example, jld's husband, Dug, has said more than once on this forum that he believes her expectations ultimately make him a better person.
> 
> Expectations aren't always aligned when it comes to sex either. (At least in my experience..) After more than two decades of clinical sexlessness, my wife suddenly took it into her head that I should throw her over my shoulder; carry her upstairs and make passionate love to her, which is something I had about as much desire to do at that point as going to the dentist and having my teeth scraped with sharp implements.
> 
> And even if that weren't the case, functioning at that level again is not a conscious decision that a man simply makes. The abscess in my soul needed to be lanced though and without my wife's persistence, (i.e. pressure) that never would have happened and we're certainly a happier couple today because of it.
> 
> Obviously I'm speaking entirely from my own personal experience here, but a lingering question for me (As you can probably tell) is why it seems to work so differently when the shoe is on the other foot. Dozens of women right her on TAM have said ideas of reciprocity and our spouses reasonable expectations of us are major, major turn-offs and I've seen obviously intelligent, articulate women driven right to the brink of irrationality by the very idea. Maybe this almost entirely cultural? (Men are supposed to want sex all the time don't cha know...)


Okay, that's an interesting take. I wasn't thinking of either expectations or persistence as pressure, but can certainly see why they would be seen that way. 

To my mind, it's about how these expectations and persistence are approached. Is it with love and respect for the person's autonomy and independent needs? Or is it with guilt, shame, and anger?

The blogger's h, for example, had the "if you *really* loved me" approach, which is all about guilt. 

When I was pressuring my SO, it was from anger and resentment because I didn't think it fair at all that his sexual life was so independent from mine.

I think the reasons people get so upset isn't because of neutral concepts like reciprocity or reasonable expectations. It's about feeling just as this blogger did, that her feelings were entirely irrelevant, and that what she was going through only meant that she was broken, terrible, selfish, cruel, manipulative, and destined for divorce. And no matter what she thinks, his needs should prevail, because, you know: "She owes him. All her needs are being met." When in fact they are not at all being met, and she is not even being heard.

There is nothing like feeling like you aren't being heard to provoke screaming.


----------



## jld

She was not listening for applause. She was expressing herself and maybe hoping for empathy.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## always_alone

marduk said:


> Nobody can tell me what to do with my eyeballs or my body; however that comes with the heavy accountability that I have to keep everything in it's place -- and I'd expect a large brick upside the head from my spouse if I didn't. And vice versa.


Well, exactly. No one can tell me to do with my eyeballs and my body. And so you (not you personally, of course) telling me that I have to have *this* much sex, with *this* much enthusiasm, and *this* much variety, and *this* much frequency, is telling me exactly what I need to do with my body.

So why is *not* okay for me to tell you what to do with your body, but it *is* okay for you to tell me what to do with mine, indeed so much so that you will tell me how cruel, evil, manipulative, evil, and terrible I am when I fail to comply?


----------



## jld

always_alone said:


> There is nothing like feeling like you aren't being heard to provoke screaming.


Truer words were never spoken.
_Posted via Mobile Device_
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## always_alone

marduk said:


> S
> What I have an issue with is how she went about it, in my view in a very passive-aggressive and manipulative way.


Because she gave him a possible solution to a problem that he had expressed over and over and over again? All he needed to say was: "no, that's not what I want. What I want/need is ..... How are we going to get there?"


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> She was not listening for applause. She was expressing herself and maybe hoping for empathy.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


As evidenced by what?


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> Well, exactly. No one can tell me to do with my eyeballs and my body. And so you (not you personally, of course) telling me that I have to have *this* much sex, with *this* much enthusiasm, and *this* much variety, and *this* much frequency, is telling me exactly what I need to do with my body.
> 
> So why is *not* okay for me to tell you what to do with your body, but it *is* okay for you to tell me what to do with mine, indeed so much so that you will tell me how cruel, evil, manipulative, evil, and terrible I am when I fail to comply?


Sorry, I'm not picking up what you're laying down in that last paragraph... but I liked the first.

Are you saying that your problem is that he's demanding more sex with enthusiasm and variety?

I didn't see that in the article. Just that he constantly wants sex. I don't think she wrote that he demands it 7 days a week in specific ways or anything.


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> Because she gave him a possible solution to a problem that he had expressed over and over and over again? All he needed to say was: "no, that's not what I want. What I want/need is ..... How are we going to get there?"


Again, no issue necessarily with what she offered, and the sense of desperation about it.

What I have an issue with is how she went about it, and didn't stop to consider his feelings.

Just that she loved him, wanted him to stick around, and didn't want a divorce.

If I honestly lost all sex drive and found sex repulsive... I'd probably suck it up and offer my wife the same because I loved her.

But in a completely different way that came from the angle of how _she_ felt about it and how I wanted _her_ to life a fulfilled life because I loved her and could no longer give her that.


----------



## always_alone

marduk said:


> Sorry, I'm not picking up what you're laying down in that last paragraph... but I liked the first.
> 
> Are you saying that your problem is that he's demanding more sex with enthusiasm and variety?
> 
> I didn't see that in the article. Just that he constantly wants sex. I don't think she wrote that he demands it 7 days a week in specific ways or anything.


Not exactly, because we don't have those details from the article. The point being is that he is making demands on what she does with her body. So if he were to turn around and then tell her she has absolutely no right to tell him what he can do with his, then he would be a hypocrite.

Did he? We'll probably never know, but it certainly is a possibility. 

What's the point of speculating? Well, it's just to unpack all of the assumptions that have gone into making her out to be an absolute cow for suggesting the hall pass while patting him on the back for being such a long-suffering hero.


----------



## EllisRedding

always_alone said:


> My point is that I still don't get why it's considered so awful and terrible that she offered him a hall pass.
> 
> If it's perfectly harmless for a person to decide to add "spice" and "variety" by expending their sexual energies on others absolutely voluntarily, why is it so cruel, manipulative, selfish and terrible to suggest that maybe your spouse could go ahead and expend his sexual energies somewhere else?
> 
> I mean it is possible that her husband has never watched porn, and so maybe it doesn't apply in her case. But since they say 99.9% of guys do, I think it's a fair bet that he does as well.


Curious, do you feel the same about a woman who uses a toy or pleasures herself when her SO is not around, would that be in the same level as the guy watching porn? I would assume so.

For some, the issue with the free pass has to do with the fidelity of the marriage. I guess that then begs the question, is the fidelity of a marriage in question if a guys watches porn (or the female does the equivalent)? I am sure that has been debated here plenty of times ...


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> What's the point of speculating? Well, it's just to unpack all of the assumptions that have gone into making her out to be an absolute cow for suggesting the hall pass while patting him on the back for being such a long-suffering hero.


A_A I don't know why I have to repeat myself over and over again; that's clearly not what I said.

Is this triggering something?


----------



## always_alone

marduk said:


> If I honestly lost all sex drive and found sex repulsive... I'd probably suck it up and offer my wife the same because I loved her.
> 
> But in a completely different way that came from the angle of how _she_ felt about it and how I wanted _her_ to life a fulfilled life because I loved her and could no longer give her that.


And yet you keep assuming that she had no love or compassion behind her offer. Why is that? 

Can you not imagine any scenario in which you might blurt something that you aren't entirely on board with, but think might be the right thing to do?


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> And yet you keep assuming that she had no love or compassion behind her offer. Why is that?


Because her entire approach was based upon herself -- her feelings, her security, her pressure... and she was _surprised_ by his response, which shows that she didn't likely spend any time considering his feelings at all -- just the impact to her if she lost him.

Why do I have to keep repeating the same things over and over again?


> Can you not imagine any scenario in which you might blurt something that you aren't entirely on board with, but think might be the right thing to do?


Absolutely.

I've blurted out with a sense of frustration many hurtful things to my wife. Because they came from a place of pain, hurt, and fear... does it make that OK?

If I wrote a blog post about it very eloquently in a spectacular act of self-celebration, would you be defending me?


----------



## jld

Marduk, you seem to strongly identify with this guy. Are you defending him because you would want someone to defend you if you were in his shoes?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> Marduk, you seem to strongly identify with this guy. Are you defending him because you would want someone to defend you if you were in his shoes?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Sigh.

Project much?

No, I don't identify with him. I've said I think he's selfish, too.

But I'm sure picking up on the pity party/mistreat others/celebrate me! vibe she's putting out.


----------



## always_alone

marduk said:


> A_A I don't know why I have to repeat myself over and over again; that's clearly not what I said.
> 
> Is this triggering something?


It is clearly what you said. Over and over and over again -- you have called her every name in the book.


----------



## jld

I think you are interpreting her in a way that allows sympathy for the husband.

I am sure we all project on these boards. Just like we all hope for empathy.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> It is clearly what you said. Over and over and over again -- you have called her every name in the book.


Absolutely. And I stand by it.

But not for the reasons you seem to think I did.

I get that you sympathize with her feelings. I get that you want to celebrate her courage for voicing publicly her feelings of pain and frustration.

If she's anything like her writing, there is a pretty clear maslow's hierarchy in action in her life, just with her ego at the top of her pyramid.


----------



## Icey181

jld said:


> Marduk, you seem to strongly identify with this guy. Are you defending him because you would want someone to defend you if you were in his shoes?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


And A_A is making assumptions and filling in blanks from what appears to be her own personal issues.

Despite the fact that most of what she has been talking about in the last two pages have nothing to do with either the blog post or the author's emails with Blossom.

Marduk has a point:


Marduk said:


> Because her entire approach was based upon herself -- her feelings, her security, her pressure... and she was _surprised_ by his response, which shows that she didn't likely spend any time considering his feelings at all -- just the impact to her if she lost him.


Read the original blog post; it lead me to assume she is a narcissistic manipulator.

The reason for that is because the original post was entirely self-focused; her wants, her needs, her decision.

And her solution was quite literally, "Go fVck someone else, just don't fall in love."

In other words, go get your jollies off, leave me alone, and do not do anything that would alter my ability to get what I want out of this arrangement.

The OP clearly has a great deal of resentments built up concerning her husband.

However, that she has legitimate concerns and issues which need to be addressed and her husband was not getting does not excuse the manner in which she approached it 

Narcissistic manipulators who seek to control their SO via emotional blackmail can have real issues too.

This thread is hilarious.

In a darkly ironic sort of way.

After basically the whole forum categorized "Dread Game" disgusting emotional manipulation over in the Red Pill thread, here we have people actively defending what is in essence Low-Libido Nuclear Dread.

The author has legitimate concerns.

That does not change the fact that she was self-centered and that her "solution" amounted to little more than radical emotional blackmail against her husband.

I also do not buy the simple, "Now we are back on track" follow up.

She offered the Free Pass.

And despite the fact that he said _no_, he was clearly _hurt_ and then suddenly began to _back off_.

Sure, most here seem to want to attribute that to an ignorant husband finally meeting her needs.

But it sounds too _quick_ and perfect for me.

*Good money is that the aftermath made her realize she might have just irreparably damaged her marriage with that single offer and her libido came flooding back the moment she realized she loved her husband and that it was possible to lose him.*


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> I think you are interpreting her in a way that allows sympathy for the husband.
> 
> I am sure we all project on these boards. Just like we all hope for empathy.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


And when I called him selfish, what did that mean?

My god.

I'm starting to feel like this guy.


----------



## ocotillo

always_alone said:


> The blogger's h, for example, had the "if you *really* loved me" approach, which is all about guilt.


Believe me, AA, I got plenty of, "What's the matter, don't you love me anymore?" 

I didn't see it as guilt so much as an expression of anguish at the belated realization that romantic love can't be put away like a piece of jewelry in a box and then taken out and dusted off years later. (Which is a sentiment the author of the article stated almost verbatim.)


----------



## Icey181

ocotillo said:


> Believe me, AA, I got plenty of, "What's the matter, don't you love me anymore?"
> 
> I didn't see it as guilt so much as an expression of anguish at the belated realization that romantic love can't be put away like a piece of jewelry in a box and then taken out and dusted off years later. (Which is a sentiment the author of the article stated almost verbatim.)


100% agreed.

As an individual who has dealt with a LL to dead bedroom situation, I can tell you that is basically terrifying to see your spouse concede they are surrendering romantic love for a while and assuming "it will just come back eventually."

Yeah, no. It won't.


----------



## Marduk

DARVO:

Deny: check. "I've done everything, he's great, I'm great, everything would be great if he would just **** off"
Attack: check. "Oh the pressure!"
Reverse victim and offender: "If only he would stop expecting me to be a wife and mother, everything would be great! It's his and society's expectations of me that's the problem!"

Nuclear dread game: As Icey said. One thing I'd add is that the FIRST thing that would go through my mind as the husband would be "does my wife want to **** someone else? Is she already?"

Dark Triad:
Narcissism: check. memememememememe.... and everything's great that it's all about me!!! Millionz of likes and don't be judgy! Self-aggrandizement. Egoism. Pride. Seeking to be celebrated.
Machiavellianism: To me, this 'conversation' with her husband was a set-up, and she knew how he would react. I feel bad, so let's push that onto my husband, and take the pressure with it. Check and mate.
Psychopathy: There are some pieces of that here -- impulsivity, selfishness, and remorselessness to name a few.

What is the highest emotional correlate to 'dark triad' behaviours: a lack of agreeableness. "No, I won't respond to negative comments."

Sheesh.

I guess all that's OK because sometimes being a wife and mother is hard.


----------



## Buddy400

marduk said:


> I guess all that's OK because sometimes being a wife and mother is hard.


That seems to be the take-away.


----------



## Buddy400

always_alone said:


> Let me put it this way: my SO watches porn every day, and *I'm* supposed to see that as just a normal part of male libido, and not get all butt hurt about it.


What you need to do is stop pressuring him all the time about what he should do with his body. He finds that a turn-off. Back away and wait until his desire to watch porn subsides and he wants to have sex with you instead. Whatever you do, don't ask him to give your needs priority over his own (even occasionally).


----------



## farsidejunky

always_alone said:


> Yes, exactly. He is willingly giving his sexual energy to someone other than me. This is a very, very common scenario. And many will absolutely dig in their heels and fight for their right to do this, claiming it harms no one. It's just adding a little "variety" and "spice".
> 
> But somehow offering someone the opportunity to give their sexual energy to a third party is the most offensive thing in the world.
> 
> I'm sorry, but it still doesn't compute.


I don't get it. I (and others) agreed with you yet you are still trying to argue. Are you not feeling heard?


----------



## Fozzy

Buddy400 said:


> What you need to do is stop pressuring him all the time about what he should do with his body. He finds that a turn-off. Back away and wait until his desire to watch porn subsides and he wants to have sex with you instead. Whatever you do, don't ask him to give your needs priority over his own (even occasionally).


Heeeeyyyyyyy,

I see what you did there!


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Icey181 said:


> The OP clearly has a great deal of resentments built up concerning her husband.


Which she wholeheartedly affirmed in our emails, specifically using the word hate.... yet she also hated herself for feeling that way. At gut level she knew that wasn't right. My assessment is she didn't have the skills at the time to know why it didn't feel right and bring it to fruition.


----------



## Icey181

Blossom Leigh said:


> Which she wholeheartedly affirmed in our emails, specifically using the word hate.... yet she also hated herself for feeling that way. At gut level she knew that wasn't right. My assessment is she didn't have the skills at the time to know why it didn't feel right and bring it to fruition.


Which is yet another reason why I dislike the original blog and find her unwillingness to update it problematic.

But I guess a blog which explains that she was as much to blame for the issue as he was and that the Free Pass was covering up a failure to properly communicate and was likely a nigh-fatal mistake fails to be as dramatic or put her in the light she wants…


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Icey181 said:


> Which is yet another reason why I dislike the original blog and find her unwillingness to update it problematic.
> 
> But I guess a blog which explains that she was as much to blame for the issue as he was and that the Free Pass was covering up a failure to properly communicate and was likely a nigh-fatal mistake fails to be as dramatic or put her in the light she wants…


Yes, if it were my blog I would care to update.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Bugged said:


> *Mrs Hosseini's Husband is NOT your husband..>.your husband (probably) would have never married Mrs Hosseini or the other way round..the difference between your H and Mr Hosseini is that he KNOWS his wife, she's not just a post on a blog...he probably knew that she was overwhelmed and felt helpless..bause that's exactly how a situation like that makes you feel...
> that's why, like in most situations where people feel like that, the booze and the drugs seem to help (they don't)*.


Well Bugged.. you got that right.. In hindsight... I have given her husband FAR TOO MUCH CREDIT .. he's probably as callous as she is.. so yeah.. he can overlook it all.. Like attracts Like after all.. 

Myself & husband are very humble with each other if/when we hurt each other... it doesn't matter what it's over.. we admit our faults easily, freely ...and talk things out... we DO care about each other's happiness...we both look upon sexual intimacy very very highly, neither of us has ever looked upon sex as "just sex"...which seems awfully common today.. it's the deepest bonding we've ever felt..and very very special... for one of us to speak like this....it would be like putting a knife through our hearts. 

This thread has really bothered me.. I guess because what I see in the responses is how far a tide our culture has turned .. this is just another indication... people condoning profanity, it's just Good humor...Oh she's so Cool... and still her refusal to update ....she could care less what anyone thinks of her , her husband, what constitutes a healthy marriage...none of it...yet she is writing about these things to hurting resentful women ... who get sucked in.. 

I'd give her some credit if she gave something constructive & helpful to her readers.. (I really would)...but no.. that's not worth her [email protected]#.. so instead she has people reading her Dribble who relate *and find it acceptable.*. I puts a very sour taste in my mouth.


----------



## always_alone

Buddy400 said:


> What you need to do is stop pressuring him all the time about what he should do with his body. He finds that a turn-off. Back away and wait until his desire to watch porn subsides and he wants to have sex with you instead. Whatever you do, don't ask him to give your needs priority over his own (even occasionally).


You are laughing at me, but that was exactly what I had to do. Recognize him as an autonomous being that would find me obnoxious and undesirable, and realize that I have absolutely no entitlement to have any of my needs met. He gets to do what he wants; I get to go along with him or leave.


----------



## Cosmos

always_alone said:


> You are laughing at me, but that was exactly what I had to do. Recognize him as an autonomous being that would find me obnoxious and undesirable, and realize that I have absolutely no entitlement to have any of my needs met. He gets to do what he wants; I get to go along with him or leave.


I'm sorry that you're having to deal with this, AA...


----------



## SimplyAmorous

jld said:


> *I think, for Sarah, the pressure she felt was just overwhelming. She felt he was bearing down on her, and it was like the steam valve erupted in response.*


 Her story doesn't add up to me.. she called them "HINTS".. then we learn he is out of town A LOT (similar to your husband) and still she gets mad when he comes home and wants to be with her sexually... 

It's neither here nor there for me anymore.. If he likes to be married to the Queen of Profanity, I think he's an A-hole .. 



> *Perhaps if Sarah's husband had been able to handle things with more grace, like Mr. SA did, she would not have felt desperate enough to say the things she did.*


 You tend to look at other women through the way You are, what you give (very sacrificial in comparison to most)...this is far from the picture I get from how she presents herself in her blog, writings... (if that's NOT really WHO she is, if there is a SOFT side - why do it?)...she appears like someone who'd take the balls off a man and eat them !


----------



## always_alone

ocotillo said:


> Believe me, AA, I got plenty of, "What's the matter, don't you love me anymore?"
> 
> I didn't see it as guilt so much as an expression of anguish at the belated realization that romantic love can't be put away like a piece of jewelry in a box and then taken out and dusted off years later. (Which is a sentiment the author of the article stated almost verbatim.)


That was his response to her offer of the hall pass. And that part I get.

But remember he was also pressuring her beforehand with the "if you *really* loved me, you'd ..." And that's pretty grim, IMHO.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

SimplyAmorous said:


> *Her story doesn't add up to me.. *she called them *"HINTS".*. then we learn he is out of town A LOT (similar to your husband) and still she gets mad when he comes home and wants to be with her sexually...
> 
> It's neither here nor there for me anymore.. If he likes to be married to the Queen of Profanity, I think he's an A-hole ..
> 
> You tend to look at other women through the way You are, what you give (very sacrificial in comparison to most)...this is far from the picture I get from how she presents herself in her blog, writings... (if that's NOT really WHO she is, if there is a SOFT side - why do it?)...she appears like someone who'd take the balls off a man and eat them !


This was a discrepancy in email too... here was our convo on the pressure...

*Me:*How bad was his pressure? With him gone all the time when did he put on the pressure?

*Her:*The pressure was two-fold. Maybe two different types of pressure. Both pressures were very real- but completely different. My husband was being a pressuring ass! If I had to say an average or quantify- he's gone and home in 6 weeks intervals. The pressure was full court at home. *And* I was being self-conscious about my body. Not to mention- *completely overwhelmed in all aspects of my life*.


----------



## Marduk

So...

In a twelve week period, he wants sex every six weeks?

On average, every other day?

That's pretty normal.

I'm NOT suggesting that she doesn't (or shouldn't) feel pressured during that six week period...

A problem is obviously his job.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

I'm going to say this, just from conversations I had with her and thoughts about my own studies in emotional availability, that the addition of motherhood to her life turned her emotional, mental and physical availability for her husband on its head. She did not adjust readily to motherhood as stated on her blog and to me in emails. Her ability to handle sex pressure from her husband was reduced already at the same time that I believe his impatience for her to come out of that new state of being was increasing. Therefore the pressure increased exponentially and she blew at him. I don't condone it, but I understand it. And I personally would have handled it differently.


----------



## always_alone

marduk said:


> DARVO:
> 
> Deny: check. "I've done everything, he's great, I'm great, everything would be great if he would just **** off"
> Attack: check. "Oh the pressure!"
> Reverse victim and offender: "If only he would stop expecting me to be a wife and mother, everything would be great! It's his and society's expectations of me that's the problem!"
> 
> Nuclear dread game: As Icey said. One thing I'd add is that the FIRST thing that would go through my mind as the husband would be "does my wife want to **** someone else? Is she already?"
> 
> Dark Triad:
> Narcissism: check. memememememememe.... and everything's great that it's all about me!!! Millionz of likes and don't be judgy! Self-aggrandizement. Egoism. Pride. Seeking to be celebrated.
> Machiavellianism: To me, this 'conversation' with her husband was a set-up, and she knew how he would react. I feel bad, so let's push that onto my husband, and take the pressure with it. Check and mate.
> Psychopathy: There are some pieces of that here -- impulsivity, selfishness, and remorselessness to name a few.
> 
> What is the highest emotional correlate to 'dark triad' behaviours: a lack of agreeableness. "No, I won't respond to negative comments."
> 
> Sheesh.
> 
> I guess all that's OK because sometimes being a wife and mother is hard.


I actually think you are projecting a whole lot of crap onto her that isn't evidenced by anything in that article or in her responses to Blossom, or in anything else.

1. She did not deny there was a problem, she stated her reactions to a problem.

2. She did not attack anyone, she expressed her feelings of stress.

3. She did say that things would be okay if she could just have a break, but I hardly see that as blaming all of society. I don't see any good reason why it's "victim" behaviour to push back on social "shoulds", especially when they are making your life miserable. 

4. You believe that she knew exactly how her husband would react, but I see know evidence for this. I personally had no idea how my SO would react to the idea of an open relationship, and I did think that's what he wanted. 

5. She did express remorse, and it clearly troubled her that she had upset him. 

6. And yes, the article is about her feelings, but errr, that's what it's about. Are you suggesting that there should never be that type of article?

And to top it off, I'd like to gently remind you that you have spent ages and ages arguing why it's quite desirable for you and men generally to conscientiously develop these traits.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Expressed remorse for?


----------



## Cosmos

Blossom Leigh said:


> I'm going to say this, just from conversations I had with her and thoughts about my own studies in emotional availability, that the addition of motherhood to her life turned her emotional, mental and physical availability for her husband on its head. She did not adjust readily to motherhood as stated on her blog and to me in emails. Her ability to handle sex pressure from her husband was reduced already at the same time that I believe his impatience for her to come out of that new state of being was increasing. Therefore the pressure increased exponentially and she blew at him. I don't condone it, but I understand it. And I personally would have handled it differently.


This is my take on it, too. Combined with his frequent absences from home, I think these issues simply caused her to become disconnected from him.


----------



## ocotillo

Icey181 said:


> Which is yet another reason why I dislike the original blog and find her unwillingness to update it problematic.


To be fair, scarymommy.com is not a blog. It's the internet equivalent of a magazine with a President, a Content Manager, a couple of Associate Editors, a Director of Business Development, etc.

Even if she wanted to, the author of the article couldn't simply post an update without the permission of the site owners and managers.


----------



## Marduk

FrenchFry said:


> Yes, but it's not every other day pressure. It's a 6 weeks pressure, 6 weeks absolutely nothing. You get used to one and then it switches off again.
> 
> It's emotionally and physically topsy-turvy. I have a friend with a husband who has a similar schedule. She says that when he comes home it's like getting used to a houseguest over and over again.
> 
> It's high pressure and stressful and requires a crazy amount of flexibility and trust in your relationship.
> 
> Most people are not willing to do it.


I agree.

I think he's a fool for not finding a different job.

I'm just trying to take a balanced approach.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

marduk said:


> I agree.
> 
> I think he's a fool for not finding a different job.
> 
> I'm just trying to take a balanced approach.


Yep, he needs to fix that.


----------



## jld

SimplyAmorous said:


> Her story doesn't add up to me.. she called them "HINTS".. then we learn he is out of town A LOT (similar to your husband) and still she gets mad when he comes home and wants to be with her sexually...
> 
> It's neither here nor there for me anymore.. If he likes to be married to the Queen of Profanity, I think he's an A-hole ..
> 
> You tend to look at other women through the way You are, what you give (very sacrificial in comparison to most)...this is far from the picture I get from how she presents herself in her blog, writings... (if that's NOT really WHO she is, if there is a SOFT side - why do it?)...she appears like someone who'd take the balls off a man and eat them !


Well, when I read her, I just hear young, overwhelmed mom with a husband gone for work a lot. And I can identify with that.

It is true that she and I probably do not have much in common beyond that. And the thought of turning my husband down for sex, however I happened to be feeling at the time, would probably not have occurred to me. And a "hall pass" is a completely foreign idea to my mind.

But I am not her. And Dug is not at all like her husband. And Dug is sympathetic to her. That says a lot to me.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

jld said:


> Well, when I read her, I just hear young, overwhelmed mom with a husband gone for work a lot. And I can identify with that.
> 
> It is true that she and I probably do not have much in common beyond that. And the thought of turning my husband down for sex, however I happened to be feeling at the time, would probably not have occurred to me. And a "hall pass" is a completely foreign idea to my mind.
> 
> But I am not her. And Dug is not at all like her husband. And Dug is sympathetic to her. That says a lot to me.


I'm sympathetic with both of them and want to take both of them to task.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

> *Cosmos said*: This is my take on it, too. Combined with his frequent absences from home, I think these issues simply caused her to become disconnected from him.





marduk said:


> I think he's a fool for not finding a different job.


Does she complain or does she like the money?.. it could be either way...maybe they both care more about success & 6 figures (assuming) over their time together.. after all, everyone is different.. this could be something they have in common...not taking into consideration the toll it CAN take on them emotionally.


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> I actually think you are projecting a whole lot of crap onto her that isn't evidenced by anything in that article or in her responses to Blossom, or in anything else.


Sigh.

Honestly...

It is clear that you and jld have no interest in trying to understand what I'm saying.


> 1. She did not deny there was a problem, she stated her reactions to a problem.


Denial:


> There is more than enough good stuff to sustain us, as a couple, as a family, while the romance of our relationship takes a rendezvous. If our marriage goes on a hot-and-heavy hiatus, does that mean we're going to hell in a hand basket? That we're destined for the big "D"?





> 2. She did not attack anyone, she expressed her feelings of stress.


Attack


> Pressure to be a good, hot, skinny, sexy wife who knows how to bone you like a freaky prostitute


and 



> It's repulsive. It's a disgusting feeling.


And even



> I don't care how much pyscho-babble you've had shoved down your throat.





> 3. She did say that things would be okay if she could just have a break, but I hardly see that as blaming all of society. I don't see any good reason why it's "victim" behaviour to push back on social "shoulds", especially when they are making your life miserable.


What she actually did say:


> For godssakes, the sex will come. The dates will come. The courtship. The passion. And if they don't for a year … or two or five … that's OK.


A five year break on sex?

Who thinks they can stop having sex for five years and everything will be ok, and they can just pick it up again?

and 



> I'll never get any of those things back.


and



> My body will never come back.


and



> My marriage will never be on the same track.


and



> My story is no different from that of anyone else with young kids. I'm exhausted. I'm drained. I don't need the added pressure of givin' up the almighty (pristine and groomed) ***** every night. I don't need the pressure of trying to act like a sex fiend, when really I'm just jonesin' for some good zzzzzzzz's. I don't have the bandwidth for mind-blowing sex every week.


Which is entirely reasonable except...



> He'd wouldn't flinch if I hired a cleaning company. If I ordered take-out every night. If I was never successful in my career.


So the _one_ thing that most people and marriage counsellors universally agree is a must for healthy marriages is the _one_ thing that she wants to drop first when she's under pressure.


> 4. You believe that she knew exactly how her husband would react, but I see know evidence for this. I personally had no idea how my SO would react to the idea of an open relationship, and I did think that's what he wanted.


Fact: she is married to him.
Fact: she has been married to him for years.
Fact: she did not anticipate his response, therefore:
She either did not think about how he would react, didn't care beforehand how he would react (emotional flooding on her own feelings perhaps), or doesn't understand her husband's emotional landscape.

Pick one.


> 5. She did express remorse, and it clearly troubled her that she had upset him.


Here's what she said:


> My husband looked shocked and hurt.
> 
> "You don't love me anymore," he said, lowering his voice.
> 
> My eyes swelled up, but no tears. I looked down at the ground. Didn't he understand? I offered because I DO love him.


She acknowledges that she hurt him.

Then she doesn't speak about it again. She does, however, go into her own feelings instead.

If I hurt my wife, I'd be spending some serious time thinking about what she was feeling, not on how I felt about the fact that I upset her.


> 6. And yes, the article is about her feelings, but errr, that's what it's about. Are you suggesting that there should never be that type of article?


Invoking the weak anthropic principle does nothing to dissuade the self-centered hypothesis.

There is quite literally zero mention of how her husband feels about anything, except noting he was horny, then upset.



> And to top it off, I'd like to gently remind you that you have spent ages and ages arguing why it's quite desirable for you and men generally to conscientiously develop these traits.


Meaning exactly what, A_A?


----------



## Marduk

SimplyAmorous said:


> Does she complain or does she like the money?.. it could be either way...maybe they both care more about success & 6 figures (assuming) over their time together.. after all, everyone is different.. this could be something they have in common...not taking into consideration the toll it CAN take on them emotionally.


Go back to what I said.

I said he's selfish too.

Money < marriage.

You can always make more money if that's what you want.


----------



## jld

Marduk, I think we are reading the same material and interpreting it differently.

What exactly would you want from her? That she would have pleased him sexually regardless of her feelings?

She is not like that. I bet her husband knew it when he married her, just like SA said. 

I see young, overwhelmed mom with absent husband. I am instantly sympathetic.

How are men supposed to grow if women cater to them, no matter what?


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> Marduk, I think we are reading the same material and interpreting it differently.
> 
> What exactly would you want from her? That she would have pleased him sexually regardless of her feelings?


I don't want anything from her.

If I were stupid enough to be married to her, I'd want her to pull her head out of her derriere long enough to realize that I'm a human being, too. Not a life support system for her comfort that is an inconvenience.

And I'd want us to be in therapy and understand why it's pressure to care about my day and love her children.



> She is not like that. I bet her husband knew it when he married her, just like SA said.


That's no excuse.



> I see young, overwhelmed mom with absent husband. I am instantly sympathetic.


Boo hoo.

Sympathy is different than celebration.


> How are men supposed to grow if women cater to them, no matter what?


Because men are men whether women exist or not.


----------



## Icey181

jld said:


> Marduk, I think we are reading the same material and interpreting it differently.
> 
> What exactly would you want from her? That she would have pleased him sexually regardless of her feelings?
> 
> She is not like that. I bet her husband knew it when he married her, just like SA said.
> 
> I see young, overwhelmed mom with absent husband. I am instantly sympathetic.
> 
> How are men supposed to grow if women cater to them, no matter what?


A frank discussion wherein said women explain they are feeling disconnected due to the on/off work schedule and overwhelmed by life _including sexual pressure sometimes_ might work.

Or they could just revel in self-introspective anguish and lash out at their husbands by telling them to go have sex with some stranger and leave them alone about it.

One denotes maturity and a desire to reach a mutually satisfying fix to the problem.

The other satisfies a semi narcissistic desire to play the victim card while also emotionally smashing her husband in the face.


----------



## EllisRedding

FrenchFry said:


> marduk, she's not writing for the audience of sexually frustrated husbands.
> 
> She's writing for her audience of mothers.
> 
> I don't understand why you are insisting she be accountable for an audience she isn't catering towards.


I think it is the sense that she is making her actions seem acceptable to the audience she is talking to (which as we know many women who have children can most likely relate to her on some level).


----------



## Icey181

FrenchFry said:


> marduk, she's not writing for the audience of sexually frustrated husbands.
> 
> She's writing for her audience of mothers.
> 
> I don't understand why you are insisting she be accountable for an audience she isn't catering towards.


And do you not see how that is _worse_?

Fortunately, only a handful of the comments empathized and _endorsed_ her actions.

But they accepted her approach and rationalizations as legitimate and valid.

Tell me you think that is a healthy set of advice to give…


----------



## SimplyAmorous

jld said:


> Well, when I read her, I just hear young, overwhelmed mom with a husband gone for work a lot. And I can identify with that.


 Yes you can.. though the sex never took a dive and you had lots more kids over her..



> It is true that she and I probably do not have much in common beyond that. And the thought of turning my husband down for sex, however I happened to be feeling at the time, would probably not have occurred to me. And a "hall pass" is a completely foreign idea to my mind.


 thankfully. 



> But I am not her. And Dug is not at all like her husband. And Dug is sympathetic to her. That says a lot to me.


but isn't it true he would also have sympathy for a downtrodden cheating wife who got pregnant by her affair partner & think that her husband, if he is a good man, should raise the child as his own?

Honestly.. I have yet to see your Husband speak a word against a woman on this forum .. if this ever happens.. Please JLD.. point it out to me.... at this point. I find him the most biased male poster to have ever landed here..ALL FOR THE FEMALE no matter what she does...she is not at fault.. but the man brought it on. 

The 2 of you sure have brought a new perspective to this forum .. one that is not 50/50 (man has all power, woman is weak)...but you both admit it.. I'll give you that!


----------



## farsidejunky

FrenchFry said:


> marduk, she's not writing for the audience of sexually frustrated husbands.
> 
> She's writing for her audience of mothers.
> 
> I don't understand why you are insisting she be accountable for an audience she isn't catering towards.


I think the point is that is at the expense of her husband.

But again...

Her story----> Here














Truth----> Here

I am simply not buying that it is literal. It is hard to tell where the truth stops and the hyperbole starts.


----------



## jld

SimplyAmorous said:


> but isn't it true he would also have sympathy for a downtrodden cheating wife who got pregnant by her affair partner & think that her husband, if he is a good man, should raise the child as his own?
> 
> Honestly.. I have yet to see your Husband speak a word against a woman on this forum .. if this ever happens.. Please JLD.. point it out to me.... at this point. I find him the most biased male poster to have ever landed here..ALL FOR THE FEMALE no matter what she does...she is not at fault.. but the man brought it on.
> 
> The 2 of you sure have brought a new perspective to this forum .. one that is not 50/50 (man has all power, woman is weak)...but you both admit it.. I'll give you that!


Dug does not have much sympathy for men, that is true. He says they will watch out for themselves, no matter what. He sees women and children as much more vulnerable.

I will ask him if he can respond to this later. He is coming home tonight.


----------



## EllisRedding

jld said:


> Dug does not have much sympathy for men, that is true.* He says they will watch out for themselves, no matter what.* He sees women and children as much more vulnerable.
> 
> I will ask him if he can respond to this later. He is coming home tonight.


I don't even know what to say about the bolded ...


----------



## Forest

The internet is officially Too Big if there is room for stupid crap like those articles.


----------



## always_alone

marduk said:


> Sigh.
> 
> Honestly...
> 
> It is clear that you and jld have no interest in trying to understand what I'm saying.


There is a difference between disagreeing and having no interest in understanding what you are saying 

I honestly get why you think the length of time she proposes for a possible hiatus is a form of denial. Marriage without sex for 5 years does sound pretty intolerable and pointless -- except maybe to a bona fide asexual. But all of the rest of what you are saying I think is a misinterpretation. It is not an attack to find something disgusting or repulsive; it is a reaction. It is not an attack to feel like you have to live up to these impossible standards of sexuality, it is expressing a feeling. And the fact is, she never will have her body back fully, or her marriage as it once was. Once you have kids, nothing is quite the same again. And you have to adapt. Some people will take to it like a fish in water, other people struggle more. But kids will always change just about everything in your life. 

And, as I said before, hiring a cook and maid will help with those pressures. But they will not and cannot help with the libido problems. The two things aren't even connected, except that they do take up a bit of time. But the point isn't the time to do things, it's the feelings around it. She doesn't want to have to live up to these impossible sexual performance standards, and the pressure to do so is totally turning her off. No amount of maid service is going to turn her back on again. 

As for her husband's feelings on the subject: I was married to my SO for 15 years before we actually talked about this kind of thing. And frankly, I would've been very surprised if he came back at me all wounded at the proposition that we open up the marriage. Now turns out he wasn't at all offended, and so maybe I really do know his emotional landscape. But I think not. Truth is, I don't know much about his emotional landscape at all. And even *trying* to find out, I'm not entirely clear. Why? Because he won't tell me things that he doesn't think I want to hear. And because he'll say things that he does think I want to hear even if they aren't true. And, well, sorry, but I'm not a mind-reader, and I really can't figure all of that out without a bit more guidance.



marduk said:


> Meaning exactly what, A_A?


Meaning that it's a bit weird to witness this turnaround from watching you insist that, like it or not, this sort of behaviour is how life is and must be, and will make your marriage better, to insisting that it is obviously awful, marriage-destroying, showing zero consideration or empathy, terrible etc.


----------



## always_alone

FrenchFry said:


> I don't know if it's healthy.
> 
> It worked for her and she shared her story. Other women empathized indicating it's not a totally unknown situation.
> 
> Pretty much the only person she has to be accountable to she is still married to.


And her sex life is back on track. And she and him are probably happier with each other than most of us here in the peanut gallery.


----------



## always_alone

marduk said:


> If I were stupid enough to be married to her, I'd want her to pull her head out of her derriere long enough to realize that I'm a human being, too. Not a life support system for her comfort that is an inconvenience.


And basically what she wanted was for her husband to pull his head out of his derriere long enough to realize that she's a human being too, not a sex machine, porn star, super mom, or super wife.


----------



## EllisRedding

Forest said:


> The internet is officially Too Big if there is room for stupid crap like those articles.


Lol, made me think of this meme:


----------



## jld

SimplyAmorous said:


> Does she complain or does she like the money?.. it could be either way...maybe they both care more about success & 6 figures (assuming) over their time together.. after all, everyone is different.. this could be something they have in common...not taking into consideration the toll it CAN take on them emotionally.


In our case, Dug is not making more than if he were working here in town. But he is getting valuable experience, experience that could lead to a better job later on. The more you bring to successive jobs, the better you are paid.

And he enjoys the work. To me, if you are going to be the sole provider, you should at least get to enjoy your work.

Sarah's husband is Middle Eastern, iirc. That is likely where he travels to. It makes sense that he would use his background to make an income.

I think she blows off steam in that blog. My gosh, I think of the things I have said to my husband, and I can already hear some of the men here crying. And some of the women would want to protect my husband.

But Dug is not shaken by it. He looks past the words to the emotions that motivated them. And he looks at himself and where he figures into all that.

I hope Sarah and her husband have done the harder work, had the harder convos. I hope she did not just start having sex and rugsweep her feelings.


----------



## Marduk

FrenchFry said:


> marduk, she's not writing for the audience of sexually frustrated husbands.
> 
> She's writing for her audience of mothers.
> 
> I don't understand why you are insisting she be accountable for an audience she isn't catering towards.


That's exactly my point.

She's encouraging said frustrated mothers/wives... which is what I have a real problem with.


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> And her sex life is back on track. And she and him are probably happier with each other than most of us here in the peanut gallery.


correlation does not imply causation.

the two may not be related at all, or may have caused him to react very differently than she describes.


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> And basically what she wanted was for her husband to pull his head out of his derriere long enough to realize that she's a human being too, not a sex machine, porn star, super mom, or super wife.


I'm hip to that.


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> There is a difference between disagreeing and having no interest in understanding what you are saying


Then why do you keep saying that I think the problem is her low libido? 



> I honestly get why you think the length of time she proposes for a possible hiatus is a form of denial. Marriage without sex for 5 years does sound pretty intolerable and pointless -- except maybe to a bona fide asexual. But all of the rest of what you are saying I think is a misinterpretation. It is not an attack to find something disgusting or repulsive; it is a reaction. It is not an attack to feel like you have to live up to these impossible standards of sexuality, it is expressing a feeling. And the fact is, she never will have her body back fully, or her marriage as it once was. Once you have kids, nothing is quite the same again. And you have to adapt. Some people will take to it like a fish in water, other people struggle more. But kids will always change just about everything in your life.


Funny how her adaptation inconveniences only one person in her life: her husband.


> And, as I said before, hiring a cook and maid will help with those pressures. But they will not and cannot help with the libido problems. The two things aren't even connected, except that they do take up a bit of time. But the point isn't the time to do things, it's the feelings around it. She doesn't want to have to live up to these impossible sexual performance standards, and the pressure to do so is totally turning her off. No amount of maid service is going to turn her back on again.


Agreed.

Which is why it makes her connecting the two obvious for what it is: misdirection.



> As for her husband's feelings on the subject: I was married to my SO for 15 years before we actually talked about this kind of thing. And frankly, I would've been very surprised if he came back at me all wounded at the proposition that we open up the marriage. Now turns out he wasn't at all offended, and so maybe I really do know his emotional landscape. But I think not. Truth is, I don't know much about his emotional landscape at all. And even *trying* to find out, I'm not entirely clear. Why? Because he won't tell me things that he doesn't think I want to hear. And because he'll say things that he does think I want to hear even if they aren't true. And, well, sorry, but I'm not a mind-reader, and I really can't figure all of that out without a bit more guidance.


Would you describe your husband in glowing terms like she did?

He seems to be making his needs and emotional landscape pretty clear.



> Meaning that it's a bit weird to witness this turnaround from watching you insist that, like it or not, this sort of behaviour is how life is and must be, and will make your marriage better, to insisting that it is obviously awful, marriage-destroying, showing zero consideration or empathy, terrible etc.


I see larger pattern here.

You still haven't answered why it's pressure for her to care about her husband's day or loving her children.

Those are her words.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

jld said:


> Dug does not have much sympathy for men, that is true. *He says they will watch out for themselves, no matter what*. He sees women and children as much more vulnerable.
> 
> I will ask him if he can respond to this later. He is coming home tonight.


That has not been my experience with every man I have watched over the years. My grandfather was not that way nor a man who is a family friend I've known for decades, nor my Uncle Rob. My birth Dad is no longer that way. And for my H to have survived the firestorm I put him through the past year I feel he is growing into that.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

jld said:


> I think she blows off steam in that blog. My gosh, I think of the things I have said to my husband, and I can already hear some of the men here crying. And some of the women would want to protect my husband.
> 
> *But Dug is not shaken by it. He looks past the words to the emotions that motivated them. And he looks at himself and where he figures into all that*.


And this is good , commendable.. if he didn't do this.. you wouldn't feel his remorse..it would destruct your intimacy and enjoyment of him.

I just feel strongly women /wives should do the same thing. I don't think one sex is responsible for this.. while the other gets a free pass because they are female...while the man is expected to be like IRON MAN -so he doesn't need any understanding, to feel our remorse when we cut into him. 

I may have to start a thread on this subject soon.. I tried to do one on "Sensitive men" (which as we know.. I prefer).. but that didn't get into deeper waters ... Maybe it's cause your husband is French -how he views this.. I don't know... I tend to see him as a white knight sort of man - where a woman can do no wrong.. she is always vulnerable ...and needs rescued.. Feminists should be up in arms over that , ya know.. 

I used to see my husband like this until I realized through our talks he thinks plenty of women are bi*ches, would be awful to live with.. and not worth saving.. so he is NOT a white knight by any means.. he is more apt to understand why men have given up on marriage altogether..


----------



## ocotillo

jld said:


> I think she blows off steam in that blog.


--Not to sound like a broken record here, jld, but the article did not appear on her personal blog and the site it did appear on is not actually a blog at all.

Ms. Hosseini is a professional writer who majored in English and minored in Journalism. She's worked as a primetime news television producer. The article we're discussing is included in her online resume, which is not something one would do if they had simply been blowing off steam. 

I would say that at some point, we have to tip our hat to her credentials and the fact that she's probably better at expressing herself in written form than the rest of us are.


----------



## Icey181

always_alone said:


> And her sex life is back on track. And she and him are probably happier with each other than most of us here in the peanut gallery.


Anyone who thinks he pulled back after the "Free Pass" conversation and then her libido came roaring back immediately because of a little space is fooling themselves.

Deep seated resentments are not solved by providing a little bit of space.

Ten to one the reason her libido is back is because her sex drive responded to the Red Alert "Oh Sh!t" signals her husband was giving off.

That her original blog was subsumed by comments that predicted he would begin to withdraw as resentment built up and they would grow apart is also worth noting.

She read those comments, I guarantee that. 

His reaction to her insensitive and possibly _marriage ending solution_, both at the conversation (his sudden emotional hurt) and after (the pulling back for more space) likely approximated _detachment from her and the marriage_ and not just "some space."

There is more to the solution to this than she is willing to talk about.

And given the descriptions of her resentments and the language she used in her emails with Blossom (hatred) I somehow doubt she and him are "happier than most of us here."

Again, a little space does not simply fix "hatred" and resentment targeted at yourself, your life, and your spouse.

More happened here.

And we are likely never to know what, probably because it included some acceptance of failure on her part too.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

ocotillo said:


> Ms. Hosseini is a professional writer who majored in English and minored in Journalism. She's worked as a primetime news television producer. *The article we're discussing is included in her online resume, which is not something one would do if they had simply been blowing off steam. *
> 
> I would say that at some point, we have to tip our hat to her credentials and the fact that she's probably better at expressing herself in written form than the rest of us are.


What does this MEAN exactly.. is she so proud of her article that she wants to PROMOTE IT ? How do you & others feel about that ?


----------



## Icey181

FrenchFry said:


> She is talking about a tactic that she took that worked for her.
> 
> She is still having sex with her husband and it's not gross, resentment building starfish sex.
> 
> She did something fairly drastic to knock out her resentment.
> 
> What is the problem?


Sorry, not buying it.

The offer of the "Free Pass" did not work. It emotionally devastated her husband and forced him to withdraw from her.

By the end of the original blog she was still on the "Might not have sex for 5-years and I don't care" path, except now she was assured she had brow beaten her husband emotionally so that he would definitely still be there.

I am all for shifting the ground under someone's feet when they are failing to address a serious issue.

But causing an earthquake and threatening the central bonds of a marriage because _you_ (in this case her) failed to maturely explain to her husband what was going on is not healthy.

Despite the internet's sudden infatuation with open-relationships and poly-marriages, in the real world if you even offer to bring a third person into an intimate relationship it almost always _kills the original_.

The blog is absolutely horrendous advice.


----------



## Marduk

FrenchFry said:


> She is talking about a tactic that she took that worked for her.
> 
> She is still having sex with her husband and it's not gross, resentment building starfish sex.
> 
> She did something fairly drastic to knock out her resentment.
> 
> What is the problem?


I give up. You want me to repeat myself again?

Seriously?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

SimplyAmorous said:


> And this is good , commendable.. if he didn't do this.. you wouldn't feel his remorse..it would destruct your intimacy and enjoyment of him.
> 
> I just feel strongly women /wives should do the same thing. I don't think one sex is responsible for this.. while the other gets a free pass because they are female...while the man is expected to be like IRON MAN -so he doesn't need any understanding, to feel our remorse when we cut into him.
> 
> I may have to start a thread on this subject soon.. I tried to do one on "Sensitive men" (which as we know.. I prefer).. but that didn't get into deeper waters ... Maybe it's cause your husband is French -how he views this.. I don't know... I tend to see him as a white knight sort of man - where a woman can do no wrong.. she is always vulnerable ...and needs rescued.. Feminists should be up in arms over that , ya know..
> 
> I used to see my husband like this until I realized through our talks he thinks plenty of women are bi*ches, would be awful to live with.. and not worth saving.. so he is NOT a white knight by any means.. he is more apt to understand why men have given up on marriage altogether..


Dug is secure. He is not going to let something like my emotions get him down. I am sure he thinks there is a huge overreaction to her post here.

He thinks motherhood, especially with young kids and a father who is gone a lot, is hard. He genuinely respects mothers. 

And Dug loves working. Really loves it. Wants his kids homeschooled, but would prefer to be the one working than the one home with the kids all day. 

I am sure he does not understand the guys here who are up in arms over what she wrote. He does not get why a man would complain about supporting his family, either. To Dug it is a normal job for a man.

What to him is not normal is the idea that a woman should have to emotionally support a man.


----------



## Marduk

Consider well the fact that one of the areas she feels "pressure" but won't give up on is exactly writing articles like this. 

The fact is, in her own words, she would rather have written this article. 

This isn't blowing off steam. This is her job. 

To get people to pay attention to what she says.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## ocotillo

SimplyAmorous said:


> What does this MEAN exactly.. is she so proud of her article that she wants to PROMOTE IT ? How do you & others feel about that ?


SA,

It means that she feels this was a good enough example of her writing for a prospective employer to read. 

--Which begs the question of how much of it was actually real, because writers can be pretty comfortable with poetic license. 

I honestly don't know but this has certainly been an interesting discussion regardless.


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> Meaning that it's a bit weird to witness this turnaround from watching you insist that, like it or not, this sort of behaviour is how life is and must be, and will make your marriage better, to insisting that it is obviously awful, marriage-destroying, showing zero consideration or empathy, terrible etc.


I have no idea what you are saying or why you would say that.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Marduk

FrenchFry said:


> No, you don't have to repeat yourself.
> 
> We just disagree on tactics for a situation. I also don't think using a nuclear option makes her evil, lazy selfish or any other words you choose to describe her.


Ok now I'm getting angry. 

I didn't say that she was selfish for he nuclear option. 

I said she was selfish because she approached it from the singular angle of how it impacted her. 

And she is lazy, because she'd rather do nothing and write about it than do something. 



> Moreover, I believe that the women reading her blog and others like it know that such a tactic should only be used in certain situations with some men.
> 
> 
> 
> So it worked, that is what she wanted at the time.


We don't know that it worked. At all. 

We do know that she is consistent in her writing and email to be self-referential, self deferential, and disinterested in opposing points of view. 

This perspective has a name: narcissism. 


> If he pulled too far away, then she might have tried something else.
> 
> 
> Because we don't like the tactic means nothing if it worked for their marriage.
> 
> We have no more insight into their current marriage than what BlossomLeigh posted which indicates they are at the very least okay sexually. Again, the only person she is accountable towards is her husband who seems to have gotten the message she threw out.


I know it's easier to make up stories to tell yourself that she's a good person because you identify with her suffering than it is to look at it objectively.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Cosmos

Icey181 said:


> *A frank discussion wherein said women explain they are feeling disconnected due to the on/off work schedule and overwhelmed by life including sexual pressure sometimes might work.*
> 
> Or they could just revel in self-introspective anguish and lash out at their husbands by telling them to go have sex with some stranger and leave them alone about it.
> 
> One denotes maturity and a desire to reach a mutually satisfying fix to the problem.
> 
> The other satisfies a semi narcissistic desire to play the victim card while also emotionally smashing her husband in the face.


In an ideal situation, certainly. However, by the time people reach the stage our blogger apparently did, they're often no longer thinking rationally enough to even know what they're feeling, let alone explain it... Prolonged stress and anxiety can decrease our reasoning powers and cause us to act destructively...


----------



## Icey181

FrenchFry said:


> So it worked, that is what she wanted at the time.
> 
> If he pulled too far away, then she might have tried something else.


I agree, it worked.

Her goal was to emotionally devastate her husband and destroy his willingness to initiate sex.

She used emotional manipulation to destroy one of his emotional needs so that she did not have to put in the heavy lifting of addressing her resentment and personal issues by having an honest and uncomfortable _conversation_ with her husband about how she viewed her life.



FrenchFry said:


> Because we don't like the tactic means nothing if it worked for their marriage.


I do not think it worked.

Personally, I think she almost ended her marriage in that moment and found a way to fix things _afterwards_.

If that Free Pass BS actually worked _she would have mentioned it in the blog_.

It failed.

Unless of course her goal was to emotionally castrate her husband and force him to withdraw from her.

Then kudos to her.



FrenchFry said:


> We have no more insight into their current marriage than what BlossomLeigh posted which indicates they are at the very least okay sexually. Again, the only person she is accountable towards is her husband who seems to have gotten the message she threw out.


On the contrary, I think _she_ got the message _he_ threw out.

She was ignoring his emotional needs to the point of _being surprised he would be hurt that she offered him to go have sex with another woman._

By being emotionally wounded by the "offer" her husband reminded her that she was married to a man with real emotional needs and emotions, not just the source of her resentments.

Look at this logically:
1) Husband states that he needs sexual intimacy for the marriage to survive
2) Wife rejects that and him completely
3) Husband begins to withdraw
4) Wife suddenly has a libido again and is having sex

Sounds to me like whatever changed, it was _the recognition on her part of his emotional needs_.

Sorry, this entire blog smacks of Super-Mom syndrome.

She emotionally detached from her husband and did not realize just how much until she personally and seriously made him question her love for him.

Yes, he has a part to play in this as well.

But she is a narcissistic emotional manipulator who was dismissive of her husband's needs at least as much as he was missing hers.


----------



## Icey181

Cosmos said:


> In an ideal situation, certainly. However, by the time people reach the stage our blogger apparently did, they're often no longer thinking rationally enough to even know what they're feeling, let alone explain it... Prolonged stress and anxiety can decrease our reasoning powers and cause us to act destructively...


And this excuses what she did how?


----------



## Icey181

I am officially confused now.

Is it or is it not emotional manipulation to go nuclear on a relationship to deal with sexual mismatch?

Or is said emotional manipulation ok simply because it is coming from an overwhelmed mother instead of a husband not having sex?

Seriously.

This is dread, nuclear dread of the borderline ending the relationship by threatening to completely detach from it, variety.

Are the posters defending this women seriously arguing that what she did was a viable, successful, and healthy fix to their problems?

Really?


----------



## Cosmos

Icey181 said:


> And this excuses what she did how?


I'm not making excuses for her. I'm stating a general fact.


----------



## Cosmos

Icey181 said:


> I am officially confused now.
> 
> Is it or is it not emotional manipulation to go nuclear on a relationship to deal with sexual mismatch?


Whilst the effect might be no less punitive, whether or not a behaviour is manipulative depends on intent. In this case I get the impression that the hall pass bombshell was impulsive rather than manipulative - like a lid flying off a pressure cooker.


> Or is said emotional manipulation ok simply because it is coming from an overwhelmed mother instead of a husband not having sex?
> 
> Are the posters defending this women seriously arguing that what she did was a viable, successful, and healthy fix to their problems?


As I've stated several times in this thread, I am not defending her. I am trying to understand what caused her to say what she did... 

Of course what she said to him wasn't a healthy fix to their problems, but I don't necessarily believe that she was deliberately trying to manipulate him, either.


----------



## EllisRedding

Cosmos said:


> Whilst the effect might be no less punitive, whether or not a behaviour is manipulative depends on intent. In this case I get the impression that the hall pass bombshell *was impulsive *rather than manipulative - like a lid flying off a pressure cooker.


If all we have to go by is her blog (which is all we have) she clearly stated that she had gone over the free pass idea over and over in her mind. There is no hint of impulsive there, or she just blurted it out like a pressure cooker. I think people want to believe that, but as I said, her blog clearly contradicts that line of thought. She had given it a lot of thought, and this was the best option for her ...


----------



## Cosmos

EllisRedding said:


> I*f all we have to go by is her blog (which is all we have) she clearly stated that she had gone over the free pass idea over and over in her mind.* There is no hint of impulsive there, or she just blurted it out like a pressure cooker. I think people want to believe that, but as I said, her blog clearly contradicts that line of thought. She had given it a lot of thought, and this was the best option for her ...


Then I stand corrected. 

However, I find it very hard to believe that anyone in a normal frame of mind would have made such a hurtful suggestion to their spouse.


----------



## Fozzy

FrenchFry said:


> She is talking about a tactic that she took that worked for her.
> 
> She is still having sex with her husband and it's not gross, resentment building starfish sex.
> 
> She did something fairly drastic to knock out her resentment.
> 
> What is the problem?


I have a friend who refuses to wear a seatbelt because her dad once got in an accident and the fact that he wasn't wearing a seatbelt is what saved his life.

Now she not only does not wear seatbelts, she advises other people to also not wear seatbelts. I'm not kidding.

It worked out for her dad, but do you really think it's responsible to go around giving that advice?


----------



## EllisRedding

Cosmos said:


> EllisRedding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I*f all we have to go by is her blog (which is all we have) she clearly stated that she had gone over the free pass idea over and over in her mind.* There is no hint of impulsive there, or she just blurted it out like a pressure cooker. I think people want to believe that, but as I said, her blog clearly contradicts that line of thought. She had given it a lot of thought, and this was the best option for her ...
> 
> 
> 
> Then I stand corrected.
> 
> However, I find it very hard to believe that anyone in a normal frame of mind would have made such a hurtful suggestion to their spouse.
Click to expand...

Agreed. That is part of the reason for the reaction to her pass, in no way does it come across as impulsive in her blog, and nowhere did she seem remorseful about telling that to him. Makes for great journalism though


----------



## jld

I just saw this over on the ultimatehusband website. I think it applies here.

_"Unfortunately, most of the time we guys are blind and deaf to our wife’s cries for help. We think she is attacking us when she is actually pleading for our understanding. When her words begin we fall into our favorite defense posture to ward off her artillery, all while we should be listening to the fear behind her words. Not only do we miss out on the chance to express compassion for our wife, but our self-protective condition keeps us from discovering how we have wounded her and stops us from growing as a man."_


----------



## morituri

jld said:


> I just saw this over on the ultimatehusband website. I think it applies here.
> 
> _"Unfortunately, most of the time we guys are blind and deaf to our wife’s cries for help. We think she is attacking us when she is actually pleading for our understanding. When her words begin we fall into our favorite defense posture to ward off her artillery, all while we should be listening to the fear behind her words. Not only do we miss out on the chance to express compassion for our wife, but our self-protective condition keeps us from discovering how we have wounded her and stops us from growing as a man."_


So in order to "grow as men", we need to adopt "women" who suffer from a bad case of arrested development via a marriage license? :scratchhead:


----------



## jld

morituri said:


> So in order to "grow as men", we need to adopt "women" who suffer from a bad case of arrested development via a marriage license? :scratchhead:


To grow as a man, you need to stop looking to your wife to bring about the betterment of your marriage. Look at yourself and what you can do. That is what will help you feel stronger in yourself instead of dependent on her.

I think that is what concerns me most about this discussion--the number of men who see the woman as responsible for improving the marriage. They are cementing their dependence on women in this way, while feeling oppressed by them. How can that be in any way empowering?

I have four boys. I have no intention of ever telling them to look to their wives to improve the marriage. Mom will be telling them to look at their own contribution to their troubles. That is where their power is. That is how they can make things better and earn the trust of their wives.


----------



## jld

@morituri: Have you read _The Way of the Superior Man_?


----------



## EllisRedding

Last I checked most people here felt both man and woman were responsible for improving/working on a marriage....


----------



## jld

EllisRedding said:


> Last I checked most people here felt both man and woman were responsible for improving/working on a marriage....


And that works great if both of them are ready and willing to step up.

But lots of times on TAM only one person is willing to act. There is much one person can do to get things back on track. Seeing their own ability to create change is empowering.


----------



## always_alone

marduk said:


> Then why do you keep saying that I think the problem is her low libido?
> 
> Funny how her adaptation inconveniences only one person in her life: her husband.


That's not what I said. The problem, it seems to me, is that she is failing to place her husband's libido as the number 1 priority. That's why it's so terrible that she doesn't hire a cook and a maid, why it's so awful that she still works on her career. 

But again, we have absolutely no idea how much or how little other aspects of her life are being neglected. I know in my life, when I'm under pressure, my house is a pigsty, my friends never hear from me, and while I'm.professional enough to hold my job together, my productivity and quality of work also suffers. 

Now maybe you are right that she actually does everything else perfectly, and all her frustration is aimed at her husband. But I doubt it. That was just the subject of that particular article.

And when the problem is libido, the solution needs to address the actual problem, not what she is having for dinner or how clean her house is.




marduk said:


> Would you describe your husband in glowing terms like she did?
> 
> He seems to be making his needs and emotional landscape pretty clear.


Yeah, at the expense of her needs and emotional landscape. How is that fair?




marduk said:


> I see larger pattern here.
> 
> You still haven't answered why it's pressure for her to care about her husband's day or loving her children.
> 
> Those are her words.


I didn't read those words -- they weren't in the OP article. And anything I say will be pure speculation. Maybe he drones on about his job and all the beans he counted that day. Maybe he never listens to her. Maybe she's forgotten how to have regular adult conversations after a day with the kids. Maybe you're right that she doesn't really care about him --but I doubt it, as she'd probably not feel any pressure at all about pleasing him.

As for the kids thing: It's not something that you're really allowed to talk about, but a lot of parents have ambivalent feelings about their children. Kids are an amazing miracle, full of wonder and life, but they are also a royal PITA. Some more than others. In this particular case, I'd say thee blogger is giving voice to something that a lot of mom's struggle with and feel terribly guilty and awufl about.


----------



## Wazza

jld said:


> @morituri: Have you read _The Way of the Superior Man_?


Here it is if you want it. 

http://www.smilyanov.net/download/pdfs/The Way of the Superior Man.pdf

If JLD's philosophy resonates with you, the book probably will too.


----------



## farsidejunky

jld said:


> And that works great if both of them are ready and willing to step up.
> 
> But lots of times on TAM only one person is willing to act. There is much one person can do to get things back on track. Seeing their own ability to create change is empowering.


I think I may have figured out a few things in the process of bringing a marriage back from the brink.

And it doesn't start with the man per se, but the stronger partner. They are the ones that must initiate the process.

However, I can tell you that with me stepping up my game also came expectations that she do the same. It took her over a year to reach that point comfortably. Had she not done so, I would be posting in LAD.

I am willing to carry my partner when she is unable. And I will carry her a very short time if she is unwilling, at which time I will gently set her down, and promptly keep on walking. She can choose to keep following, or not.


----------



## always_alone

Icey181 said:


> On the contrary, I think _she_ got the message _he_ threw out.
> 
> She was ignoring his emotional needs to the point of _being surprised he would be hurt that she offered him to go have sex with another woman._
> 
> By being emotionally wounded by the "offer" her husband reminded her that she was married to a man with real emotional needs and emotions, not just the source of her resentments.
> 
> Look at this logically:
> 1) Husband states that he needs sexual intimacy for the marriage to survive
> 2) Wife rejects that and him completely
> 3) Husband begins to withdraw
> 4) Wife suddenly has a libido again and is having sex
> 
> Sounds to me like whatever changed, it was _the recognition on her part of his emotional needs_.


That's one way of parsing the situation, but it assumes that he is the only one with influence in the relationship. The following is just as logical:
1) Husband pressures wife for sex.
2) Wife rejects that and tells him if he wants sex, he can get it somewhere else
3) Husband is shocked, hurt that she feels that way, and backs off to give her space.
4) Wife, with room to breathe, relaxes, regains her equilibrium, and rediscovers his libido.

I do find it interesting, though, that you attribute women with all sorts of selfish and calculating intent, but with absolutely zero power to have any impact.


----------



## Wazza

farsidejunky said:


> I think I may have figured out a few things in the process of bringing a marriage back from the brink.
> 
> And it doesn't start with the man per se, but the stronger partner. They are the ones that must initiate the process.
> 
> However, I can tell you that with me stepping up my game also came expectations that she do the same. It took her over a year to reach that point comfortably. Had she not done so, I would be posting in LAD.
> 
> I am willing to carry my partner when she is unable. And I will carry her a very short time if she is unwilling, at which time I will gently set her down, and promptly keep on walking. She can choose to keep following, or not.


This is a pretty good summary. 

I would add that there are different kinds of strength. There have been times when my strengths have been at the fore in my marriage, and times when Mrs Wazza has been the strong one. It's easy for me to see my strength at the time because I am conscious of my amazingly noble sacrifices. Sometimes I only fully appreciate Mrs Wazza's contributions after the fact.


----------



## Icey181

always_alone said:


> That's one way of parsing the situation, but it assumes that he is the only one with influence in the relationship. The following is just as logical:
> 1) Husband pressures wife for sex.
> 2) Wife rejects that and tells him if he wants sex, he can get it somewhere else
> 3) Husband is shocked, hurt that she feels that way, and backs off to give her space.
> 4) Wife, with room to breathe, relaxes, regains her equilibrium, and rediscovers his libido.


Look back at her blog and the way she described her views on life and her husband via Blossom.

The word "hatred" popped up.

We are not talking about some simple feelings of being slightly inconvenienced by poorly timed sexual pressure.

We are talking about deep-seated resentment bordering on hatred (self and projected) that lead to her planning out and then hitting her husband with an emotional nuke to either cheat on her of stfu.

Are we really arguing that some simple space just magically fixed this woman's libido in, what, 18-days?

Absolute BS.

Considering the amount of resentment that she expressed both in her blog and to Blossom there is no way a week or two worth of non-initiating from her husband fixed everything.

In nearly every single low-libido situation I have ever read in which the woman demands space to reset her libido the low-libido situation immediately and radically devolves into a full-blown dead bedroom situation.

Resentments do not simply go away.



always_alone said:


> I do find it interesting, though, that you attribute women with all sorts of selfish and calculating intent, but with absolutely zero power to have any impact.


Reading things that are not there, in the least.

1) I attribute _this woman_ a considerable degree of selfish and calculating intent. Her blog is literally her admission to both of those.

Why you think I am going to let you paint me as a generalizing misogynist in passing and not call you on it is beyond me. :redcard:

2) I have quite clearly stated that via her agency she had a _significant_ and by my guess nearly _marriage ending_ impact on her situation.

You seem to be misconstruing my distaste for this woman's refusal to act like an adult and do some of the heavy lifting of facing and managing her resentment with a statement that she is doing nothing.

She certainly has quite a bit of agency and influence in her marriage.

She chose to use it to emotionally strike down her husband's libido with as much force as possible short of demanding a divorce. (And offering a Free Pass in a committed monogamous relationship is functionally indistinguishable, as both end the marriage as was and establishes a new irreversible relationship dynamic).

If I wanted to be really nasty I could easily argue that this women coldly calculated to destroy her husband's spontaneous sex drive with the Free Pass offer and when it worked via his withdrawal and she realized that she was now in control of the situation she began doling out sexual intercourse on her terms, with him simply thankful that any sex is happening, and then calling that "normal."

Personally, I think she made a serious mistake by dismissing, entirely, her husband's emotional needs, and was awoken by a combination of his obvious hurt at the suggestion and immediate withdrawal.

Remember, she did not ask for space to get back in touch with herself.

She told her husband to go have sex with another woman and leave her alone.

Are you telling me that when her husband's reaction was "You don't love me anymore" combined with apparent and immediate detachment she interpreted that as a supportive partner giving space?

Because that has all the hallmarks of the warnings she was given in the comments section about a detaching spouse falling out of love with his wife.

And, low and behold, despite all the resentment and all the emotional turmoil turned _hatred_, her libido came back damn near instantaneously…

That is not the pattern I have observed with low-libido partners demanding space.

Something overrode her resentments.

My money is on _fear_.


----------



## Icey181

Cosmos said:


> Whilst the effect might be no less punitive, whether or not a behaviour is manipulative depends on intent. In this case I get the impression that the hall pass bombshell was impulsive rather than manipulative - like a lid flying off a pressure cooker.


This has been covered.

The Free Pass was a calculated plan to put an end to his initiating sex that she went over a number of times and deployed when she decided she had enough.



Cosmos said:


> As I've stated several times in this thread, I am not defending her. I am trying to understand what caused her to say what she did...


I think that is pretty simple.

She saw her husband as a source of her resentments.

She was looking to most immediately and effectively put an end to the demands she identified as pressuring her _that did not require her to make any actual sacrifices_.

There is no way she expected her husband to take the Free Pass.

It was designed to shock him into immediate detachment and put an end to the pressure under threat of ending the marriage.

My bet is that she was completely dismissing the idea that her husband also had emotional needs and failed to recognize that the consequence of her "offer" _for him_ would be to question the central tennet of the marriage, whether they were actually in love.



Cosmos said:


> Of course what she said to him wasn't a healthy fix to their problems, but I don't necessarily believe that she was deliberately trying to manipulate him, either.


She clearly was.

This was not a sudden emotional outburst of an overwhelmed woman.

This was a planned and calculated effort to put an immediate end to her husband's sexual desires in the most damaging, ergo long-term, way possible.

She wanted to ensure:
1) He stopped asking for sex
2) He would accept a death to _his definition of intimacy_ for years on end but a continuation of _hers_
3) He would not dare to alter the dynamics of their relationship as she had threatened to do

Sorry, you would have to be astoundingly stupid and ignorant in order for this offer to be anything other than emotional manipulation.

She employed a specific tactic for a specific purpose.

Personally, I think she failed to account for possible fall out because she was being selfish and dabbling with narcissism and refusing to even think about her husband as a person.

It is easy to not care about the emotions of your SO when you reduce them to nothing but the source of your resentments.


----------



## Icey181

jld said:


> I just saw this over on the ultimatehusband website. I think it applies here.
> 
> _"Unfortunately, most of the time we guys are blind and deaf to our wife’s cries for help. We think she is attacking us when she is actually pleading for our understanding. When her words begin we fall into our favorite defense posture to ward off her artillery, all while we should be listening to the fear behind her words. Not only do we miss out on the chance to express compassion for our wife, but our self-protective condition keeps us from discovering how we have wounded her and stops us from growing as a man."_


Sorry.

My mother taught me that a woman who lacks the ability to communicate like a mature adult about the problems in her life and demands that the men around her cater to her "hidden" issues is neither an adult or worthy of a relationship with me.

I get it. I think we all do.

You basically fall under an extreme form of husband as father figure, guardian, and care-taker while seeming to think that any failings of the woman are simply failures of the man to lead.

I quite literally have never met or interacted with a person other than yourself for which that kind of relationship was something other than an overwrought caricature of the dangers of submissive relationships.

It is interesting to get your views on things, but all of your answers are always the same.


----------



## morituri

jld said:


> To grow as a man, you need to stop looking to your wife to bring about the betterment of your marriage. Look at yourself and what you can do. That is what will help you feel stronger in yourself instead of dependent on her.


In the case related to the blogger, and any woman like her, what would bring me growth is the strength of detaching from her in preparation for ending the marriage. I will own my faults but I will not own a woman's.



> I think that is what concerns me most about this discussion--the number of men who see the woman as responsible for improving the marriage. They are cementing their dependence on women in this way, while feeling oppressed by them. How can that be in any way empowering?


If we men don't have a partner we can trust and that we can depend on to build something greater than ourselves, then the question begs to be asked, why did we marry in the first place?



> I have four boys. I have no intention of ever telling them to look to their wives to improve the marriage. Mom will be telling them to look at their own contribution to their troubles. That is where their power is. That is how they can make things better and earn the trust of their wives.


You would do them a world of good by teaching them that they, like you and all of us on here planet Earth, are each responsible for his/her happiness and not to seek marriage as a way to attain it.


----------



## Cosmos

FrenchFry said:


> I don't think she was impulsive, I get the feeling of desperation.
> 
> Where we all differ is how justified was her desperation and was her tactic in alleviating her feelings a good one.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Yes, I think desperation describes it better.

So how justified were her feelings of desperation? I think that's a difficult one for any of us to answer, because our coping skills differ when it comes to dealing with stress.

All I know is that when there is pressure, stress and resentment in a relationship, sex is often the first thing to go. I don't believe that couples necessarily do this to punish or manipulate one another. I believe it's more of a coping mechanism when other forms of healthy communication have shut down.


----------



## EleGirl

Forest said:


> The internet is officially Too Big if there is room for stupid crap like those articles.


Those articles are far from the stupidest things to be found on the internet.


----------



## EleGirl

Icey181 said:


> I am officially confused now.
> 
> Is it or is it not emotional manipulation to go nuclear on a relationship to deal with sexual mismatch?
> 
> Or is said emotional manipulation ok simply because it is coming from an overwhelmed mother instead of a husband not having sex?
> 
> Seriously.
> 
> This is dread, nuclear dread of the borderline ending the relationship by threatening to completely detach from it, variety.
> 
> Are the posters defending this women seriously arguing that what she did was a viable, successful, and healthy fix to their problems?
> 
> Really?


People are advised here on TAM to use a nuclear approach as a last resort, and sometimes long before a last resort, all the time.


----------



## EleGirl

Cosmos said:


> Then I stand corrected.
> 
> However, I find it very hard to believe that anyone in a normal frame of mind would have made such a hurtful suggestion to their spouse.


I think that she did just blurt it out in frustration.

That she thought about it over and over does not mean that she planned some great manipulation.

Some people go over things in their minds, thinking through scenarios in detail. But most things are never spoken or acted on. I'm like that. Do it all the time. 99% of what goes through my head is never spoken.


----------



## Cosmos

EleGirl said:


> I think that she did just blurt it out in frustration.
> 
> *That she thought about it over and over does not mean that she planned some great manipulation.
> *
> Some people go over things in their minds, thinking through scenarios in detail. But most things are never spoken or acted on. I'm like that. Do it all the time. 99% of what goes through my head is never spoken.


This is a more likely scenario, Ele. 

I have a sister who bottles things up to such an extent that when she _does_ finally talk about them she has a tendency to go ballistic and all hell is let loose.


----------



## Cosmos

Bugged said:


> and all the answers from men on this thread are pretty the same as well (lazy and manipulative *****) and lack empathy so...


One thing that I've learned in life is that presented with exactly the same information, people can and do perceive things very differently - which is evidenced in this thread. 

We interpret what others say and do, according to our own set of past experiences, culture, faith, values, all of which help us form our beliefs about ourselves, about others, and about the world in general. 

Sometimes it's only by forcing ourselves to set aside our own core beliefs that we are able to consider a bigger picture... An inability to do so tends to result in individuals vehemently insisting that they're right and others are wrong, when the truth often lies somewhere in the middle.

In the words of Anais Nin:-

_“We don’t see things as they are, we see things as we are”. _


----------



## EllisRedding

Bugged said:


> Icey181 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is interesting to get your views on things, but all of your answers are always the same.
> 
> 
> 
> and all the answers from men on this thread are pretty the same as well (lazy and manipulative *****) and lack empathy so...
Click to expand...

Huh. I clearly stated I could relate to some of the feelings she was dealing with having just dealt with a similar situation. My issue has always been her "solutions" to the problem and she took to the Internet to embarrass her husband. Then again, I am a man so of course anything other then understanding and full empathy towards her is just another typical man thing ... I am just glad she was magically able to locate her long lost libido with one talk...

I have also yet to see a guy dismiss some of the things she was feeling , but that doesn't mean she gets a free pass on her actions...


----------



## jld

farsidejunky said:


> I think I may have figured out a few things in the process of bringing a marriage back from the brink.
> 
> And it doesn't start with the man per se, but the stronger partner. They are the ones that must initiate the process.
> 
> However, I can tell you that with me stepping up my game also came expectations that she do the same. It took her over a year to reach that point comfortably. Had she not done so, I would be posting in LAD.
> 
> I am willing to carry my partner when she is unable. And I will carry her a very short time if she is unwilling, at which time I will gently set her down, and promptly keep on walking. She can choose to keep following, or not.


Far, sometimes your posts seem to give the impression that you are afraid to be taken advantage of by your wife, afraid you might give more than you ultimately get. And I am not saying those fears are unfounded. 

Is that an accurate read of your situation, or not at all?


----------



## jld

Wazza said:


> This is a pretty good summary.
> 
> I would add that there are different kinds of strength. There have been times when my strengths have been at the fore in my marriage, and times when Mrs Wazza has been the strong one. It's easy for me to see my strength at the time because I am conscious of my amazingly noble sacrifices. Sometimes I only fully appreciate Mrs Wazza's contributions after the fact.


Hmm. That is the opposite of Dug and me. I regularly give him credit for whatever stability we have achieved in our marriage and family life. And he is equally quick to remind me that none of it would have happened without me.


----------



## jld

Icey181 said:


> Sorry.
> 
> My mother taught me that a woman who lacks the ability to communicate like a mature adult about the problems in her life and demands that the men around her cater to her "hidden" issues is neither an adult or worthy of a relationship with me.
> 
> I get it. I think we all do.
> 
> You basically fall under an extreme form of husband as father figure, guardian, and care-taker while seeming to think that any failings of the woman are simply failures of the man to lead.
> 
> I quite literally have never met or interacted with a person other than yourself for which that kind of relationship was something other than an overwrought caricature of the dangers of submissive relationships.
> 
> It is interesting to get your views on things, but all of your answers are always the same.


I think men are very powerful in relationships, Icey. I think I see them the opposite of the way you do. 

I do not think they can be emotionally destroyed, as you mentioned earlier, because of a woman's rejection. I cannot imagine a man so fragile. How unappealing. Not at all what I have experienced with Dug.

My answers are based on the idea of men as influential figures in women's lives. Gottman's research speaks to this. I want to see men use their influence to strengthen their marriages, by showing empathy and respect for their wives. Gottman says that by doing this, women will soften towards men. Repair attempts can be initiated, and marriages healed.


----------



## jld

morituri said:


> In the case related to the blogger, and any woman like her, what would bring me growth is the strength of *detaching from her in preparation for ending the marriage. *I will own my faults but I will not own a woman's.


If you are unable to lead, then this may be your best option, and a favor to her.

You may want to consider the impact your own example has. Modeling owning your faults can be inspirational to the people around you, primarily your partner.



> If we men don't have a partner we can trust and that we can depend on to build something greater than ourselves, then the question begs to be asked, why did we marry in the first place?


Good question. Why did you? Did you look beyond the packaging? That is what often seems to trip men up.



> You would do them a world of good by teaching them that they, like you and all of us on here planet Earth, are each responsible for his/her happiness and not to seek marriage as a way to attain it.


What I am telling them, first and foremost, is to look beyond the packaging with girls. You simply have to look hard at her character, if you want a quality wife.

Secondly, I am stressing that, as in most dealings with other people, you need to listen beyond their words, to hear what they are truly saying. This is the main problem in this discussion: the ability to see the forest for the trees.

Lastly, I am encouraging them to lead by example. Focus on what they can accomplish by owning their own power, instead of waiting for someone to make it easier.

I remember telling my older kids, when they would come to me saying that one or the other had "started it," that they could "finish it." 

Quite honestly, I do not see anything appealing about a man who would tell me that he needs me to carry him, which is what I hear from most of the men and some of the women in this conversation, nor the idea that we each own half the relationship (how exactly do you draw the lines?). 

What works for Dug and me is our interpretation of the Christian model of marriage: a man owning the marriage, being willing to lay down his life for his wife, and her giving her life to him in return.


----------



## farsidejunky

jld said:


> Far, sometimes your posts seem to give the impression that you are afraid to be taken advantage of by your wife, afraid you might give more than you ultimately get. And I am not saying those fears are unfounded.
> 
> Is that an accurate read of your situation, or not at all?


You know more of my story than most given your role in the thread / reconciliation. 

But I don't think fear is it. At one time it was, because it meant I had to take action I did not want to take but had to based on principles (divorce).

I know my marriage will never be 50/50. It varies between 60/40 and 70/30 in all aspects that are joint to include our son, and I am okay with that.

The problem lies in the fact that 70/30 is my boundary. If it goes any farther than that I have to act and enforce the boundary. And in fairness it is rare anymore that it happens. 

So I think fear is not it. Am I vigilant, maybe even hyper vigilant? You bet. I am already carrying my share and then some. But fear is not driving it, at least not anymore. It is principles, or my N.U.T.'s.


----------



## farsidejunky

jld said:


> I think men are very powerful in relationships, Icey. I think I see them the opposite of the way you do.
> 
> I do not think they can be emotionally destroyed, as you mentioned earlier, because of a woman's rejection. I cannot imagine a man so fragile. How unappealing. Not at all what I have experienced with Dug.
> 
> My answers are based on the idea of men as influential figures in women's lives. Gottman's research speaks to this. I want to see men use their influence to strengthen their marriages, by showing empathy and respect for their wives. Gottman says that by doing this, women will soften towards men. Repair attempts can be initiated, and marriages healed.


Generalization.

Go read Fightforher's thread and tell me a man can't be destroyed by a woman.

ETA: If your post is true, the opposite must be true for women, right? 



FTR, I don't believe that. But gender is a part of many things that define roles within a marriage.


----------



## jld

farsidejunky said:


> Generalization.
> 
> Go read Fightforher's thread and tell me a man can't be destroyed by a woman.


I think MEM tried to speak to that. Ffh has allowed whatever has happened. It is disturbing to me how he is being encouraged to think of himself as a victim.


----------



## farsidejunky

jld said:


> I think MEM tried to speak to that. Ffh has allowed whatever has happened. It is disturbing to me how he is being encouraged to think of himself as a victim.


How does that standard apply to men and not women? Is a woman, who is a mother, has a career, and is married, yet is emotionally abused also allowing it to happen?

FTR, I also think FFH is allowing it too.


----------



## jld

farsidejunky said:


> Generalization.
> 
> Go read Fightforher's thread and tell me a man can't be destroyed by a woman.
> 
> ETA: If your post is true, the opposite must be true for women, right?
> 
> 
> 
> FTR, I don't believe that. But gender is a part of many things that define roles within a marriage.


That eye roll seems reactive, far.

I think a woman could use the same techniques I suggest to men: active listening, modeling leadership, generally reaching out in empathy and avoiding reactive behavior. If the woman wants to be the dominant figure in her marriage, those techniques could earn her that position. And some women would be happy that way.

I would not. If I had to lead my marriage, I would rather be alone, and just lead myself. Nothing appealing to me about carrying a marriage, or even half of one. Total libido killer, for me.


----------



## EllisRedding

jld said:


> That eye roll seems reactive, far.
> 
> *I think a woman could use the same techniques I suggest to men: active listening, modeling leadership, generally reaching out in empathy and avoiding reactive behavior. If the woman wants to be the dominant figure in her marriage, those techniques could earn her that position. And some women would be happy that way*.
> 
> I would not. If I had to lead my marriage, I would rather be alone, and just lead myself. Nothing appealing to me about carrying a marriage, or even half of one. Total libido killer, for me.


So basically the traits of active listening, empathy, avoiding reactive behavior, those would only apply to the person who is considered the dominant in the relationship  Maybe it is just me, but those should be the traits of both people in a relationship and has nothing to do with who is more dominant. Based on this though, you are implying that most women do not have these abilities (or care to) as you state that "some" women would be happy that way (honestly comes across as a dig against women).


----------



## jld

farsidejunky said:


> How does that standard apply to men and not women? Is a woman, who is a mother, has a career, and is married, yet is emotionally abused also allowing it to happen?
> 
> FTR, I also think FFH is allowing it too.


If she has her own money, I think she has some leverage she can work with. She mainly needs to own her power, and stop handing it over to him. A divorce may be necessary.

I think a SAHD, just by virtue of his being male, and the influence men typically have over women, is in a more advantageous position, even without his own money.

I just do not think men and women are the same, far.


----------



## jld

EllisRedding said:


> So basically the traits of active listening, empathy, avoiding reactive behavior, those would only apply to the person who is considered the dominant in the relationship  Maybe it is just me, but those should be the traits of both people in a relationship and has nothing to do with who is more dominant. Based on this though, you are implying that most women do not have these abilities (or care to) as you state that "some" women would be happy that way (honestly comes across as a dig against women).


Your interpretation, I guess.

I do see those as the hallmarks of the leader in a relationship. The person who can remain calm and use empathy to defuse anger is going to earn the trust of the other partner. That is going to give that person power in the marriage. Reactivity and a need to be catered to will not.

I think, in reality, many women are leading their marriages, simply because someone has to, and the man either will not or cannot. I do not think all of them are happy with things that way, though. 

I think many women would appreciate empathy and humility from their husbands, as well as proactivity in repairing the relationship.


----------



## farsidejunky

jld said:


> That eye roll seems reactive, far.
> 
> I think a woman could use the same techniques I suggest to men: active listening, modeling leadership, generally reaching out in empathy and avoiding reactive behavior. If the woman wants to be the dominant figure in her marriage, those techniques could earn her that position. And some women would be happy that way.
> 
> I would not. If I had to lead my marriage, I would rather be alone, and just lead myself. Nothing appealing to me about carrying a marriage, or even half of one. Total libido killer, for me.


The eye roll was more about this debate, which we have recycled several times, which starts in different areas, but normally arrives back at the same central theme: is it care (your stance) or enabling (my stance), or more specifically, where is that line drawn.

Perhaps your approach is the magic bullet for relationships in crisis. But I know what my limitations are, both by skill and by choice. I will not be what Dug is 100% of the time. I find that proposition to be singularly unfulfilling to me and an inhibitor of growth for the woman.


----------



## jld

To me, the debate question is Who is responsible for getting the marriage on a healthier track?

Most of the men and some of the women think it is Sarah. I think it is Sarah's husband. And I think he needs to do it by empathy and humility, not fear.

How do you think Dug's style inhibits my growth?


----------



## always_alone

Icey181 said:


> Resentments do not simply go away.


Actually, they do go away. They need to be addressed, sure, but once that happens, they can melt away like they were never there.

How deep seated were her resentments? Probably not that deep. Why you have this image of her seething and calculating to strike out is beyond me. I do not get that impression at all. The word hatred surely can mean something that toxic, but doesn't necessarily.

And seriously, if she plotted all that to get her way of not having sex, and is now having sex because she is now insecure and desperately afraid to lose her marriage as you say, then (a) she's pretty much an absolute failure at plotting and calculating and (b) pretty much has zero power to impact her marriage. 

You say she has the power to destroy it, but she doesn"t even have that, as she's still with him, and now doing everything his way.

Since none of this fits terribly well with my understanding of human nature, I'll stand by what I said. You are basically painting her as evil, selfish, and calculating, but with zero power to impact her relationship. And he, of course, is the long suffering hero (or perhaps a complete idiot for putting up with what would have to be a pretty toxic life).


----------



## farsidejunky

jld said:


> To me, the debate question is Who is responsible for getting the marriage on a healthier track?
> 
> Most of the men and some of the women think it is Sarah. I think it is Sarah's husband. And I think he needs to do it by empathy and humility, not fear.
> 
> How do you think Dug's style inhibits my growth?


I think you are stronger than you give credit for in your marriage. You are growing because you choose to, and are seeking it out. That makes it an environment in which you thrive, because of who you are.

I tried that approach with my wife for over a year. All it did was enable her to do less emotionally. In abundance.

As soon as I made her lack of contribution uncomfortable for her to continue, it changed relatively quickly.

So I think a better way to put it is this environment works for you, but not for all.

Now, how is my approach taking less responsibility for the relationship?


----------



## farsidejunky

Bugged said:


> and all the answers from men on this thread are pretty the same as well (lazy and manipulative *****) and lack empathy so...


Rather than group all women into a lump, I will make a comment directly to you.

Some, not all, but some? About as little empathy as you have for a HD man with a LD partner.

Bugged, for someone who desperately needs empathy for being LD, you have a tremendous amount of difficulty empathizing for those suffering with one.

It must be a tough spot.


----------



## jld

farsidejunky said:


> I think you are stronger than you give credit for in your marriage. You are growing because you choose to, and are seeking it out. That makes it an environment in which you thrive, because of who you are.
> 
> I tried that approach with my wife for over a year. All it did was enable her to do less emotionally. In abundance.
> 
> As soon as I made her lack of contribution uncomfortable for her to continue, it changed relatively quickly.
> 
> So I think a better way to put it is this environment works for you, but not for all.
> 
> Now, how is my approach taking less responsibility for the relationship?


I think your neediness limited your impact on your wife. I don't think you were willing to have the buck stop with you, and only you.

You and I disagree on this, and I want to keep this general, but I think the most powerful impact you have had on your wife, in terms of one specific action, was your use of transparency. I think that one thing had a tremendous impact on her. 

Transparency is an incredibly powerful tool. It forces people to face themselves, and does not allow them to hide any longer.


----------



## jld

farsidejunky said:


> Rather than group all women into a lump, I will make a comment directly to you.
> 
> Some, not all, but some? About as little empathy as you have for a HD man with a LD partner.
> 
> Bugged, for someone who desperately needs empathy for being LD, you have a tremendous amount of difficulty empathizing for those suffering with one.
> 
> It must be a tough spot.


Why not reach out to her, far, instead of expecting her to reach out to you?


----------



## EllisRedding

jld said:


> Your interpretation, I guess.
> 
> I do see those as the hallmarks of the leader in a relationship. The person who can remain calm and use empathy to defuse anger is going to earn the trust of the other partner. That is going to give that person power in the marriage. Reactivity and a need to be catered to will not.
> 
> *I think, in reality, many women are leading their marriages, simply because someone has to, and the man either will not or cannot. I do not think all of them are happy with things that way, though.*
> 
> I think many women would appreciate empathy and humility from their husbands, as well as proactivity in repairing the relationship.


So with the bolded, another generalization ... according to you many men are incapable of or unwilling to be a "leader" in their marriage... 

Also, most men and women I would think would appreciate empathy and humility from their SO, as well as being proactive in repairing a relationship. Once again, this is not gender specific, or at least I only see it as gender specific in your eyes.


----------



## always_alone

Bugged said:


> and all the answers from men on this thread are pretty the same as well (lazy and manipulative *****) and lack empathy so...


What's interesting to me is that it would seem that the ones most likely to be railing at her for how evil she is seem to be the ones most likely to be frustrated by their sexless relationships.

One can't help but wonder if there is a connection there...


----------



## farsidejunky

always_alone said:


> What's interesting to me is that it would seem that the ones most likely to be railing at her for how evil she is seem to be the ones most likely to be frustrated by their sexless relationships.
> 
> One can't help but wonder if there is a connection there...


Or perhaps the ones that were and are not any longer?


----------



## farsidejunky

jld said:


> I think your neediness limited your impact on your wife. I don't think you were willing to have the buck stop with you, and only you.
> 
> You and I disagree on this, and I want to keep this general, but I think the most powerful impact you have had on your wife, in terms of one specific action, was your use of transparency. I think that one thing had a tremendous impact on her.
> 
> Transparency is an incredibly powerful tool. It forces people to face themselves, and does not allow them to hide any longer.


Let's stick with this model for a second. If the buck stops with me, and she is my subordinate, does that also mean I am responsible for holding her accountable as well?

Or is it pure empathy with no accountability?


----------



## jld

farsidejunky said:


> Or perhaps the ones that were and are not any longer?


Because their wives are afraid of losing the marriage, and are not yet strong enough in themselves to leave it?


----------



## jld

farsidejunky said:


> Let's stick with this model for a second. If the buck stops with me, and she is my subordinate, does that also mean I am responsible for holding her accountable as well?
> 
> Or is it pure empathy with no accountability?


Think inspiration, not accountability, far. Your own example is very powerful to her.

ETA: And again, transparency is a powerful tool. Holding a mirror up to a loved one when your motive is sincere is a gift. Not being able to hide from ourselves makes us reflect.


----------



## farsidejunky

jld said:


> Because their wives are afraid of losing the marriage, and are not yet strong enough in themselves to leave it?


If my wife walks away, or stops showing just how happy she is, I will come back here and tell you that you were right.

Until then, I will continue to watch how happy she has become with us, and more specifically, me.


----------



## farsidejunky

jld said:


> Think inspiration, not accountability, far. Your own example is very powerful to her.
> 
> ETA: And again, transparency is a powerful tool. Holding a mirror up to a loved one when your motive is sincere is a gift. Not being able to hide from ourselves makes us reflect.


That sounds an awful lot like responsibility without authority.

I will continue to set the example through self accountability, just as I will continue to hold her accountable.


----------



## EllisRedding

farsidejunky said:


> I will continue to set the example through self accountability, just as I will continue to hold her accountable.


And isn't that a trait of a good leader... if the people "below" you know they won't be accountable for their actions, that as leader you will just jump in and assume all blame/responsibility, what motivation do they have to succeed/change/do right???


----------



## jld

farsidejunky said:


> If my wife walks away, or stops showing just how happy she is, I will come back here and tell you that you were right.
> 
> Until then, I will continue to watch how happy she has become with us, and more specifically, me.


I did not mean your case, specifically. I do think it applies in some marriages, though.


----------



## jld

farsidejunky said:


> That sounds an awful lot like responsibility without authority.
> 
> I will continue to set the example through self accountability, just as I will continue to hold her accountable.


You are very attached to that accountability theme, far.


----------



## jld

EllisRedding said:


> And isn't that a trait of a good leader... if the people "below" you know they won't be accountable for their actions, that as leader you will just jump in and assume all blame/responsibility, what motivation do they have to succeed/change/do right???


Their own integrity?


----------



## EllisRedding

jld said:


> Their own integrity?


If you want to rely solely on ones integrity, good luck with that, see how far that gets you as a leader. Integrity or not, you need to still hold people accountable for their actions.


----------



## jld

I read this on a Christian blog recently. I would like to share it here.

_I was really mean to a friend earlier this week. I felt she was making a bad choice, and I reacted harshly and judgmentally, criticizing her way more honestly and extensively than was ever appropriate. I told myself that my harsh words were coming from a caring place of wanting to see her avoid the same mistakes I had made in my past, but in large part I was using the situation to vent anger at my old self.

I was prideful, thinking that I could play the role of the Holy Spirit to change her (into what I thought she should be of course) with my harsh words, when the truth is that God has never been anything but patient and gentle in teaching and changing me._

I think this woman is right, that patience and gentleness, combined, imo, with transparency, can be very effective at inspiring change.


----------



## farsidejunky

Accountability is necessary, from both of us to each of us. Otherwise it becomes a cauldron of resentment for things that are done. I owe it to her; she owes it to me. I won't remain in a relationship without it.

This is where character matters, and why the idea of choosing someone with impeccable character is critical for your and Dug's marriage model.

For the record, my wife also has strong character in many areas, to include areas in which I could be better. I tend to be pragmatic in situations rather than principled, although that is changing as I grow. But discipline... She struggles mightily with discipline, then wonders why her life goes in cycles of chaos.


----------



## jld

EllisRedding said:


> If you want to rely solely on ones integrity, good luck with that, see how far that gets you as a leader. Integrity or not, you need to still hold people accountable for their actions.


I think being as honest as possible with people could help them become accountable to themselves. And isn't that what we really want, that people discipline themselves?


----------



## jld

farsidejunky said:


> Accountability is necessary, from both of us to each of us. Otherwise it becomes a cauldron of resentment for things that are done. I owe it to her; she owes it to me. I won't remain in a relationship without it.
> 
> This is where character matters, and why the idea of choosing someone with impeccable character is critical for your and Dug's marriage model.
> 
> For the record, my wife also has strong character in many areas, to include areas in which I could be better. I tend to be pragmatic in situations rather than principled, although that is changing as I grow. But discipline... She struggles mightily with discipline, then wonders why her life goes in cycles of chaos.


Yes, impeccable character is absolutely what people should be looking for in a marriage partner. We may pay a great price if it is not our first priority.

We all surely struggle with self-discipline, far. It is human nature to want what we want, when we want it.


----------



## EllisRedding

jld said:


> I think being as honest as possible with people could help them become accountable to themselves. And isn't that what we really want, that people discipline themselves?


You can be as honest as you want with people, it may or may not help them become accountable, every person is different. Also, people disciplining themselves could be seen as a form of accountability, but it also doesn't mean that what they consider the form of discipline is appropriate.


----------



## jld

EllisRedding said:


> You can be as honest as you want with people, it may or may not help them become accountable, every person is different. Also, people disciplining themselves could be seen as a form of accountability, but it also doesn't mean that what they consider the form of discipline is appropriate.


I think it can be effective in marriage, combined with a fine example. 

I believe transparency is powerful.


----------



## farsidejunky

jld said:


> Yes, impeccable character is absolutely what people should be looking for in a marriage partner. We may pay a great price if it is not our first priority.
> 
> We all surely struggle with self-discipline, far. It is human nature to want what we want, when we want it.


Which is why accountability must be a part of marriage.


----------



## EllisRedding

jld said:


> I think it can be effective in marriage, combined with a fine example.
> 
> I believe transparency is powerful.


I agree with this, with the exception it should apply to both people in the marriage


----------



## Duguesclin

EllisRedding said:


> And isn't that a trait of a good leader... if the people "below" you know they won't be accountable for their actions, that as leader you will just jump in and assume all blame/responsibility, what motivation do they have to succeed/change/do right???


No, this is the trait of a good manager. The trait of a good leader is inspiration. You want people to do things because they want to, not because they have to.

It is not we should lead without accountability, because accountability is indeed very important. But the accountability has to come from within.

I would hate to manage my wife.


----------



## jld

farsidejunky said:


> Which is why accountability must be a part of marriage.


Maybe you could give an example?


----------



## jld

Duguesclin said:


> No, this is the trait of a good manager. The trait of a good leader is inspiration. You want people to do things because they want to, not because they have to.
> 
> It is not we should lead without accountability, because accountability is indeed very important. But the accountability has to come from within.
> 
> I would hate to manage my wife.


And I would hate to be "managed." Sounds very controlling.


----------



## farsidejunky

Duguesclin said:


> No, this is the trait of a good manager. The trait of a good leader is inspiration. You want people to do things because they want to, not because they have to.
> 
> It is not we should lead without accountability, because accountability is indeed very important. But the accountability has to come from within.
> 
> I would hate to manage my wife.


Casting a vision and walking towards that vision is leadership.

Other things necessary from a leader?

*leading by example
*accountability 
*a sense of justice
*being willing to make the hard decision if it is right
*discipline
*accountability of self and subordinates
*managing

All are traits of a sound leader. I am sure there is more.

But ultimately I get to choose what type of leader I want to be, based on my principles. I choose to have accountability.


----------



## EllisRedding

Duguesclin said:


> No, this is the trait of a good manager. The trait of a good leader is inspiration. You want people to do things because they want to, not because they have to.
> 
> It is not we should lead without accountability, because accountability is indeed very important. But the accountability has to come from within.
> 
> I would hate to manage my wife.


Inspiration, accountability, etc... are all components that a leader has. No one is saying to lead solely on the basis of accountability. And really, the point being, there has to be accountability in some form whether it is coming from within or not.


----------



## farsidejunky

jld said:


> Maybe you could give an example?


The shower. I come back to that every time. Trajectory changed dramatically after that. I know you think it was the credit card issue, and that improved trajectory as well. But the single largest shift in her willingness to be a contributor started the night of the shower incident.


----------



## jld

farsidejunky said:


> The shower. I come back to that every time. Trajectory changed dramatically after that. I know you think it was the credit card issue, and that improved trajectory as well. But the single largest shift in her willingness to be a contributor started the night of the shower incident.


Well, I do not want to get into the details of that. Yes, I do think the credit card issue was far more important. But I realize to you the shower was more meaningful. I will leave it at that.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

I am behind on posts but wanted to include this one thought....

I'm seeing two different types of narcissism discussed here. The first type is situational narcissism which is aka self protection. That is healthy narcissism when and external force is unreasonable. The other type of narcissism is pathological and not situational, though could see spikes during situational needs. This is where we don't know quite enough to determine if she is pathological or not. 

One question needed to help that decision making process would be was his pressure reasonable or not. This is unclear because opposite words were used to describe the pressure "constant hints" and "pressuring ass." I do feel self promotion is going on because of her career because she laments about her career on the blog, so it is an interest for her.

At what point is that normal, and at what point is it not?


----------



## farsidejunky

jld said:


> Well, I do not want to get into the details of that. Yes, I do think the credit card issue was far more important. But I realize to you the shower was more meaningful. I will leave it at that.


Rofl, sounds like a scene from a bad movie.


----------



## jld

farsidejunky said:


> Rofl, sounds like a scene from a bad movie.


:lol:


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Cosmos said:


> Whilst the effect might be no less punitive, *whether or not a behaviour is manipulative depends on intent*. *In this case I get the impression that the hall pass bombshell was impulsive rather than manipulative* - like a lid flying off a pressure cooker.
> 
> 
> As I've stated several times in this thread, I am not defending her. I am trying to understand what caused her to say what she did...
> 
> Of course what she said to him wasn't a healthy fix to their problems, but I don't necessarily believe that she was deliberately trying to manipulate him, either.


Actually, if you look back at the article, she admits the idea had been brewing in her mind for "quite some time."

The blurting may have been impulsive, but the idea is in serious question about whether that was intended to be manipulative or not.


----------



## Wazza

EleGirl said:


> People are advised here on TAM to use a nuclear approach as a last resort, and sometimes long before a last resort, all the time.


By some.

I personally think it is spectacularly bad advise in a lot of cases.


----------



## Wazza

jld said:


> Hmm. That is the opposite of Dug and me. I regularly give him credit for whatever stability we have achieved in our marriage and family life. And he is equally quick to remind me that none of it would have happened without me.


I would say that is has taken both Mrs Wazza and I to make a successful marriage. We have both played out part.

In a sense perhaps you are saying the same of you and Dug? Not sure. 

Different roles in the two couples of course. I'm ok with that. I figure part of the value of TAM is to share a range of ideas,


----------



## jld

Wazza said:


> I would say that is has taken both Mrs Wazza and I to make a successful marriage. We have both played out part.
> 
> In a sense perhaps you are saying the same of you and Dug? Not sure.
> 
> Different roles in the two couples of course. I'm ok with that. I figure part of the value of TAM is to share a range of ideas,


I thought what you were saying in your post is that you readily see your own contributions, but only afterwards see hers. With Dug and me, it is the opposite.


----------



## jld

Wazza said:


> This is a pretty good summary.
> 
> I would add that there are different kinds of strength. There have been times when my strengths have been at the fore in my marriage, and times when Mrs Wazza has been the strong one. *It's easy for me to see my strength at the time because I am conscious of my amazingly noble sacrifices. Sometimes I only fully appreciate Mrs Wazza's contributions after the fact*.


This is what I was referring to, Wazza.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

jld said:


> I just saw this over on the ultimatehusband website. I think it applies here.
> 
> _"Unfortunately, most of the time we guys are blind and deaf to our wife’s cries for help. We think she is attacking us when she is actually pleading for our understanding. When her words begin we fall into our favorite defense posture to ward off her artillery, all while we should be listening to the fear behind her words. Not only do we miss out on the chance to express compassion for our wife, but our self-protective condition keeps us from discovering how we have wounded her and stops us from growing as a man."_


And yet can also be written in the opposite form:

"Unfortunately, most of the time we women are blind and deaf to our husbands cries for help. We think he is attacking us when he is actually pleading for our understanding. When his words begin we fall into our favorite defense posture to ward off his artillery, all while we should be listening to the fear behind his words. Not only do we miss out on the chance to express compassion for our husband, but our self-protective condition keeps us from discovering how we have wounded him and stops us from growing as a woman."

I have experienced this and see it happen around me in other relationships where the woman is oblivious to the pain she has just caused because she is blind to her own selfishness and "believes" she is in the right. I watched it happen one time between my mother and step father. I was standing there gobsmacked that she could not see his pain that was so obvious to me and she was just as calm as a cucumber and totally believed she was right and had not one moment of empathy for him storming off in pain. I was gutted at her lack of ability to see. And yet, I have crossed that line myself and is why I strive to never cross it again.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

farsidejunky said:


> I think I may have figured out a few things in the process of bringing a marriage back from the brink.
> 
> And it doesn't start with the man per se, but the stronger partner. They are the ones that must initiate the process.
> 
> However, I can tell you that with me stepping up my game also came expectations that she do the same. It took her over a year to reach that point comfortably. Had she not done so, I would be posting in LAD.
> 
> I am willing to carry my partner when she is unable. And I will carry her a very short time if she is unwilling, at which time I will gently set her down, and promptly keep on walking. She can choose to keep following, or not.


Brilliant post and this is my experience as well... my H had a temporary incapacity and it took me, the stronger partner to initiate and carry for a time, but I also knew for long term success an expectation for him to step into growth as well.


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> That's not what I said. The problem, it seems to me, is that she is failing to place her husband's libido as the number 1 priority. That's why it's so terrible that she doesn't hire a cook and a maid, why it's so awful that she still works on her career.


That's not what I said.


> But again, we have absolutely no idea how much or how little other aspects of her life are being neglected. I know in my life, when I'm under pressure, my house is a pigsty, my friends never hear from me, and while I'm.professional enough to hold my job together, my productivity and quality of work also suffers.
> 
> Now maybe you are right that she actually does everything else perfectly, and all her frustration is aimed at her husband. But I doubt it. That was just the subject of that particular article.


You're sidestepping the point, just like A_A and jld. Conveniently.

The fact is, she sites many things as the problem. And when he offers to take those other problems away... nope, she doesn't want that.

Therefore, either those other things are higher priorities, or they're misdirection (excuses). Either way is a trainride to suckville.



> And when the problem is libido, the solution needs to address the actual problem, not what she is having for dinner or how clean her house is.


Which is what I've been saying all along.



> Yeah, at the expense of her needs and emotional landscape. How is that fair?


It says that exactly nowhere.



> I didn't read those words -- they weren't in the OP article. And anything I say will be pure speculation. Maybe he drones on about his job and all the beans he counted that day. Maybe he never listens to her. Maybe she's forgotten how to have regular adult conversations after a day with the kids. Maybe you're right that she doesn't really care about him --but I doubt it, as she'd probably not feel any pressure at all about pleasing him.


Just like you obviously haven't read what I've written.

And I quote:


> Pressure to be a good, hot, skinny, sexy wife who knows how to bone you like a freaky prostitute, and put dinner on the table, and *ask you how your day was, and be this loving mother to my kids* – oh, and kick ass at my job. It's too much.





> As for the kids thing: It's not something that you're really allowed to talk about, but a lot of parents have ambivalent feelings about their children. Kids are an amazing miracle, full of wonder and life, but they are also a royal PITA. Some more than others. In this particular case, I'd say thee blogger is giving voice to something that a lot of mom's struggle with and feel terribly guilty and awufl about.


I sometimes can't stand being around my kids because they piss me off. That's normal.

I have never felt like being a loving parent was too much pressure.


----------



## Wazza

jld said:


> If I had to lead my marriage, I would rather be alone, and just lead myself. Nothing appealing to me about carrying a marriage, or even half of one. Total libido killer, for me.


That seems to be a statement about what you would choose. It's not necessarily that you couldn't do it. You would just choose not to. Is that fair?


----------



## Blossom Leigh

always_alone said:


> That's one way of parsing the situation, but it assumes that he is the only one with influence in the relationship. The following is just as logical:
> 1) Husband pressures wife for sex.
> 2) Wife rejects that and tells him if he wants sex, he can get it somewhere else
> 3) Husband is shocked, hurt that she feels that way, and backs off to give her space.
> 4) Wife, with room to breathe, relaxes, regains her equilibrium, and rediscovers his libido.
> 
> I do find it interesting, though, that you attribute women with all sorts of selfish and calculating intent, but with absolutely zero power to have any impact.


Here is how I see it...

1) Husband pressures wife for sex *at unreasonable level? Can't know for sure.* aka destructive

2) Wife rejects that and *unreasonably in return tells him if he wants sex, he can get it somewhere else* again destructive

So, at this point we have destruction added to destruction, both born out of selfishness.

3) Husband is shocked, hurt that she feels that way, and backs off to give her space *(backs off to give her space or backs off because he is hurt? we can't know that)*

4) Wife, with room to breathe *by default of withdrawal*, relaxes *or panics at loss*, regains her equilibrium, and rediscovers *HER* libido.


----------



## jld

Wazza said:


> That seems to be a statement about what you would choose. It's not necessarily that you couldn't do it. You would just choose not to. Is that fair?


I am not wired to lead a man, Wazza. Not in an intimate relationship, anyway. Total libido killer.

Truly, I see no point in being with a man if I have to rewrite that passage the way Blossom did. Other women may be okay with it, but it would not be worth it to me.


----------



## Marduk

FrenchFry said:


> That is what the nuclear option is for. It's designed for protection of self.
> 
> She did do something. She dropped a bomb. Which is an action.


Sure. She displaced her own crappy behaviour and guilt onto her husband.

I'm sure she deserves some kind of award.



> Or she is like most other people who are successful in what they do: confident.


Confidence accepts challenges to their point of view as opportunities for dialogue.

She didn't.



> Point out where I made up stories.


One


> Should we be mad at her husband who apparently responded to it?


Speculation: we don't know what happened.

two


> So it worked, that is what she wanted at the time.
> 
> If he pulled too far away, then she might have tried something else.
> 
> Because we don't like the tactic means nothing if it worked for their marriage.
> 
> We have no more insight into their current marriage than what BlossomLeigh posted which indicates they are at the very least okay sexually. Again, the only person she is accountable towards is her husband who seems to have gotten the message she threw out.


See above, and clear speculation on what she may have done.

three


> She is talking about a tactic that she took that worked for her.
> 
> She is still having sex with her husband and it's not gross, resentment building starfish sex.


We have no idea if that tactic worked, or if her husband flipped out, or exactly what happened. 

four


> It worked for her and she shared her story. Other women empathized indicating it's not a totally unknown situation.
> 
> Pretty much the only person she has to be accountable to she is still married to.


Again, we don't know if this is connected to what 'worked' or if in fact anything 'worked' at all.

And she certainly doesn't appear to be accountable to anyone but herself -- in her own writing.

five


> marduk, she's not writing for the audience of sexually frustrated husbands.
> 
> She's writing for her audience of mothers.
> 
> I don't understand why you are insisting she be accountable for an audience she isn't catering towards.


Fact: she writes to make money, and the more clicks she gets the more money she makes. If husbands click on that as a "**** you" she makes more money.

Do you want me to cite even more speculation?

And it's not half as bad as some others I've seen in this thread.



> Also where I called her a good person.


Go back to what you wrote above.

You clearly look up to her or identify with her in some way. Which is why you're overlooking her ****ty comments in my opinion.

It's like when someone says something bad about William Shatner. I don't care because Captain Kirk.


> I do like her online persona. Which, just like you, is literally all I know about her.


I take her for exactly what she says about herself.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Icey181 said:


> She told her husband to go have sex with another woman and leave her alone.
> 
> Are you telling me that when her husband's reaction was "You don't love me anymore" combined with apparent and immediate detachment she interpreted that as a supportive partner giving space?
> 
> Because that has all the hallmarks of the warnings she was given in the comments section about a detaching spouse falling out of love with his wife.
> 
> And, low and behold, despite all the resentment and all the emotional turmoil turned _hatred_, her libido came back damn near instantaneously…
> 
> That is not the pattern I have observed with low-libido partners demanding space.
> 
> Something overrode her resentments.
> 
> My money is on _fear_.


I agree with this statement. One thing that comes with fear and that is speedy reactions. This resonates with what I have witnessed in life and what I understand about the affect of fear.


----------



## Wazza

jld said:


> I am not wired to lead a man, Wazza. Not in an intimate relationship, anyway. Total libido killer.
> 
> Truly, I see no point in being with a man if I have to rewrite that passage the way Blossom did. Other women may be okay with it, but it would not be worth it to me.


I understand you no wanting to. I feel the same way. You interpret it in terms of power, to me it's about desire.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Icey181 said:


> This has been covered.
> 
> The Free Pass was a calculated plan to put an end to his initiating sex that she went over a number of times and deployed when she decided she had enough.
> 
> 
> I think that is pretty simple.
> 
> She saw her husband as a source of her resentments.
> 
> She was looking to most immediately and effectively put an end to the demands she identified as pressuring her _that did not require her to make any actual sacrifices_.
> 
> There is no way she expected her husband to take the Free Pass.
> 
> It was designed to shock him into immediate detachment and put an end to the pressure under threat of ending the marriage.
> 
> My bet is that she was completely dismissing the idea that her husband also had emotional needs and failed to recognize that the consequence of her "offer" _for him_ would be to question the central tennet of the marriage, whether they were actually in love.
> 
> 
> She clearly was.
> 
> This was not a sudden emotional outburst of an overwhelmed woman.
> 
> This was a planned and calculated effort to put an immediate end to her husband's sexual desires in the most damaging, ergo long-term, way possible.
> 
> She wanted to ensure:
> 1) He stopped asking for sex
> 2) He would accept a death to _his definition of intimacy_ for years on end but a continuation of _hers_
> 3) He would not dare to alter the dynamics of their relationship as she had threatened to do
> 
> Sorry, you would have to be astoundingly stupid and ignorant in order for this offer to be anything other than emotional manipulation.
> 
> She employed a specific tactic for a specific purpose.
> 
> Personally, I think she failed to account for possible fall out because she was being selfish and dabbling with narcissism and refusing to even think about her husband as a person.
> 
> It is easy to not care about the emotions of your SO when you reduce them to nothing but the source of your resentments.


I'm not sure her intent goes quite this far so I have asked her further questions this morning... will post what is accurate if she responds.


----------



## Wazza

jld said:


> To me, the debate question is Who is responsible for getting the marriage on a healthier track?
> 
> Most of the men and some of the women think it is Sarah. I think it is Sarah's husband. And I think he needs to do it by empathy and humility, not fear.
> 
> How do you think Dug's style inhibits my growth?


There is a third camp who think it is both.

And from my perspective (this is all subjective) Dug inhibits your growth by carrying you in some areas where you would be better off to stand on your own two feet.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Cosmos said:


> This is a more likely scenario, Ele.
> 
> I have a sister who bottles things up to such an extent that when she _does_ finally talk about them she has a tendency to go ballistic and all hell is let loose.


And mature women have learned to not do this.


----------



## jld

Wazza said:


> There is a third camp who think it is both.
> 
> And from my perspective (this is all subjective) Dug inhibits your growth by carrying you in some areas where you would be better off to stand on your own two feet.


Which areas?


----------



## Blossom Leigh

jld said:


> If you are unable to lead, then this may be your best option, and a favor to her.
> 
> You may want to consider the impact your own example has. Modeling owning your faults can be inspirational to the people around you, primarily your partner.
> 
> 
> 
> Good question. Why did you? Did you look beyond the packaging? That is what often seems to trip men up.
> 
> 
> 
> What I am telling them, first and foremost, is to look beyond the packaging with girls. You simply have to look hard at her character, if you want a quality wife.
> 
> Secondly, I am stressing that, as in most dealings with other people, you need to listen beyond their words, to hear what they are truly saying. This is the main problem in this discussion: the ability to see the forest for the trees.
> 
> Lastly, I am encouraging them to lead by example. Focus on what they can accomplish by owning their own power, instead of waiting for someone to make it easier.
> 
> I remember telling my older kids, when they would come to me saying that one or the other had "started it," that they could "finish it."
> 
> Quite honestly, I do not see anything appealing about a man who would tell me that he needs me to carry him, which is what I hear from most of the men and some of the women in this conversation, nor the idea that we each own half the relationship (how exactly do you draw the lines?).
> 
> What works for Dug and me is our interpretation of the Christian model of marriage: a man owning the marriage, being willing to lay down his life for his wife, and her giving her life to him in return.


which employs the requirement for her to be mature in the Lord and not be abusive, which means self assessing well, getting her face before the Lord, dealing with resentments and not letting them build up, Trust God with her husband even when he is wrong, but also holding him to account as her brother in Christ, which does not equate to her carrying the marriage.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

jld said:


> That eye roll seems reactive, far.
> 
> I think a woman could use the same techniques I suggest to men: active listening, modeling leadership, generally reaching out in empathy and avoiding reactive behavior. If the woman wants to be the dominant figure in her marriage, those techniques could earn her that position. And some women would be happy that way.
> 
> I would not. If I had to lead my marriage, I would rather be alone, and just lead myself. Nothing appealing to me about carrying a marriage, or even half of one. Total libido killer, for me.


Total libido killer for me too, which means I employed those skills without carrying my marriage.


----------



## Cosmos

Blossom Leigh said:


> Actually, if you look back at the article, she admits the idea had been brewing in her mind for "quite some time."
> 
> The blurting may have been impulsive, but the idea is in serious question about whether that was intended to be manipulative or not.


Agreed, and I have already declared myself corrected on that point.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

farsidejunky said:


> I think you are stronger than you give credit for in your marriage. You are growing because you choose to, and are seeking it out. That makes it an environment in which you thrive, because of who you are.
> 
> I tried that approach with my wife for over a year. All it did was enable her to do less emotionally. In abundance.
> 
> As soon as I made her lack of contribution uncomfortable for her to continue, it changed relatively quickly.
> 
> So I think a better way to put it is this environment works for you, but not for all.
> 
> Now, how is my approach taking less responsibility for the relationship?


I agree, because she is a charactered woman. And not all women are. And there are some women who are vicious.


----------



## Wazza

jld said:


> Which areas?


You tell me. It's most meaningful if you can see it.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

always_alone said:


> What's interesting to me is that it would seem that the ones most likely to be railing at her for how evil she is seem to be the ones most likely to be frustrated by their sexless relationships.
> 
> One can't help but wonder if there is a connection there...


This is inaccurate


----------



## Blossom Leigh

farsidejunky said:


> Let's stick with this model for a second. If the buck stops with me, and she is my subordinate, does that also mean I am responsible for holding her accountable as well?
> 
> Or is it pure empathy with no accountability?


The Bible says we as Christians are to hold each other accountable and gently restore each other. That includes husbands to wives and wives to husbands, but the roles are ordered and ordained by God. There is an authority given to the husband that does not belong to the wife. I think this is where these things are getting miscommunicated.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

jld said:


> I read this on a Christian blog recently. I would like to share it here.
> 
> _I was really mean to a friend earlier this week. I felt she was making a bad choice, and I reacted harshly and judgmentally, criticizing her way more honestly and extensively than was ever appropriate. I told myself that my harsh words were coming from a caring place of wanting to see her avoid the same mistakes I had made in my past, but in large part I was using the situation to vent anger at my old self.
> 
> I was prideful, thinking that I could play the role of the Holy Spirit to change her (into what I thought she should be of course) with my harsh words, when the truth is that God has never been anything but patient and gentle in teaching and changing me._
> 
> I think this woman is right, that patience and gentleness, combined, imo, with transparency, can be very effective at inspiring change.


I believe inspiration in gentleness can inspire change. I've seen it between my H and I.

Also, accountability is loving when someone who is doing wrong is allowed to feel the consequence of their behavior. 

I believe in both of these skills being used together. Apart from each other they are both somewhat ineffective. And it is because tenderness/love/mercy without justice is ignoring the Holiness of God while justice alone ignore his love/mercy and grace.


----------



## jld

Wazza said:


> You tell me. It's most meaningful if you can see it.


Not going to do your work for you, Wazza. 

You brought it up, now tell me, please.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

jld said:


> I think being as honest as possible with people could help them become accountable to themselves. And isn't that what we really want, that people discipline themselves?


Correct, but also one reason why the Bible calls us to be in relation with each other is so that accountability can happen.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Duguesclin said:


> No, this is the trait of a good manager. The trait of a good leader is inspiration. You want people to do things because they want to, not because they have to.
> 
> It is not we should lead without accountability, because accountability is indeed very important. But the accountability has to come from within.
> 
> I would hate to manage my wife.


Great description. I like that, but its also the way I view my H. Neither of us want to manage each other. We both want the other to engage in the relationship because they want to, thus we both lead by inspiration and we hold ourselves to a high standard, but I have caught both of us stepping up because the other inspired. And it indeed is beautiful. I've also seen both of us need accountability, so I see it as a definite blend. Yet within God ordained roles.


----------



## jld

Blossom Leigh said:


> Correct, but also one reason why the Bible calls us to be in relation with each other is so that accountability can happen.


Far, is that why you put so much emphasis on accountability in marriage?


----------



## always_alone

marduk said:


> That's not what I said.
> 
> 
> You're sidestepping the point, just like A_A and jld. Conveniently.
> 
> The fact is, she sites many things as the problem. And when he offers to take those other problems away... nope, she doesn't want that.
> 
> Therefore, either those other things are higher priorities, or they're misdirection (excuses). Either way is a trainride to suckville.
> 
> 
> 
> Which is what I've been saying all along.


I'm not side-stepping the point at all. Indeed, you're agreeing with me that the key issue of the article is her libido, not her housekeeping. If her housekeeping were the higher priority, then the article would probably be about that. I don't know why you insist that this means that mentioning them is some form of misdirection. It is not. It's just that these things are also part of the cumulative pile of things that she feels plethora of things she feels pressure about. So she mentions them. Big deal. It still doesn't mean that hiring a maid is going to bring her libido back, especially if the libido loss is because of resentment towards her husband.

Personally, I find it kind of bizarre that anyone would think that the issue of that article has anything at all to do with housekeeping or cooking, or that all she needs to do is hire a maid and cook. How on earth is that going to solve her problem? The only reason I can think of is that it is interpreted solely as an issue of time. But there's always time for sex as long as there's motivation. 

Maybe it adds to her sense of being overwhelmed, in which case it just might ease some of the pressure she's feeling. And that could be productive for her overall sense of well-being. But it still won't address the core issue. And, it may even make things worse because then she has to worry about how to manage and pay for the cook and the maid. 


And you're right, I did miss that clause about the husband's day and children's love. But, well, I still think what I said previously still holds.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

EllisRedding said:


> Inspiration, accountability, etc... are all components that a leader has. No one is saying to lead solely on the basis of accountability. And really, the point being, there has to be accountability in some form whether it is coming from within or not.


This is very accurate because if we fail to self manage, accountability is going to come eventually anyway. It was built into God's laws of nature.


----------



## Wazza

jld said:


> Not going to do your work for you, Wazza.
> 
> You brought it up, now tell me, please.


It's not my work and I didn't bring it up. You asked a question, I answered it. 

Pick an area where you expect Dug to carry things, and change it so you shre the load.And there's an area he is currently carrying you.


----------



## farsidejunky

jld said:


> Far, is that why you put so much emphasis on accountability in marriage?


Partially. But my reasoning is more experience based I think than anything.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

jld said:


> I thought what you were saying in your post is that you readily see your own contributions, but only afterwards see hers. With Dug and me, it is the opposite.


I believe if BOTH spouses gained this ability to see the others contributions and afterward their own would make for a spectacular relationship. Gratitude is an elixir in relationships for it is the antithesis of resentment is it not?


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Bugged said:


> Oh, no..I have such empaty for my SO for example that I moved out (of my own apartment!!!)..giving him the opportunity to find someone better..which is a lot like the free pass if you think about it...
> 
> It's not working..somehow nothing seems to work in these situations..that's why i think there needs to be a lot of compassion for someone in Sarah's situation..


Why did you hand over your place?


----------



## jld

Wazza said:


> It's not my work and I didn't bring it up. You asked a question, I answered it.
> 
> Pick an area where you expect Dug to carry things, and change it so you shre the load.And there's an area he is currently carrying you.


You brought it up first. My question was in response to your assertion that Dug inhibits my growth.

(This is a chance for leadership, Wazza. )

But seriously . . . I already know what areas he carries me in. I would just like to know what you see.


----------



## jld

Blossom Leigh said:


> I believe if BOTH spouses gained this ability to see the others contributions and afterward their own would make for a spectacular relationship. Gratitude is an elixir in relationships for it is the antithesis of resentment is it not?


Yes. If both spouses were to humbly acknowledge their gratitude for the other when there are arguments, there would be more successful conflict resolution, I believe.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Wazza said:


> There is a third camp who think it is both.
> 
> And from my perspective (this is all subjective) Dug inhibits your growth by carrying you in some areas where you would be better off to stand on your own two feet.


And if he allowed you to stand on your own two feet in those areas he has not forfeited his leadership. He is exercising it.


----------



## jld

farsidejunky said:


> Partially. But my reasoning is more experience based I think than anything.


I think our own personal experience is probably what we tend to trust most.


----------



## jld

I don't know, Blossom. Not sure I want to learn how to change the oil on the car.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Cosmos said:


> Agreed, and I have already declared myself corrected on that point.


Yea, I saw that later :nerd:

Its taking time to catch up :grin2:


----------



## always_alone

The accountability theme is interesting. My take is that ultimately we are only accountable to ourselves: my behaviour, my consequences.

Once we are deliberately holding others accountable, at least in a relationship setting, we've already lost: it has become a relationship of outlaw and cop, or parent and child, not one of love and partnership.

I wanted my SO to be accountable to me, but it had no effect whatsoever. He would just do what he wanted, and make sure that I didn't find out. And honestly, any attempt on his part to make me accountable would most likely be met in the same spirit.

Relationships need to be based on something other than cop/outlaw, warden/prisoner, parent/child, captain/underling, manager/employee, IMHO. I think it's more along the lines of generosity, acceptance, understanding, and empathy.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

jld said:


> Not going to do your work for you, Wazza.
> 
> You brought it up, now tell me, please.


Now that is funny since he was choosing not to do your work for you jld:grin2:


----------



## jld

I think we all have influence we can wield, and should do so wisely. 

But accountability, to me, crosses a dangerous line. In certain circumstances, like illness, I can understand acting unilaterally. But in less dramatic situations, like every day life, I think we are better off sticking to influence, mainly through empathy and our own example, and transparent feedback.


----------



## Marduk

FrenchFry said:


> She dealt with her perception of her husbands crappy behavior in a manner that worked for her.
> 
> Who else does she have to justify herself towards?


She doesn't have to justify herself to anyone.

Not responding to criticism is a classic narcissistic trait.



> Whose challenge did she not accept?


I'm paraphrasing her email response about how she doesn't respond to "judgy" comments.



> Speculation is not making up stories. Or it is an you are making up stories as well.


I don't intentionally speculate except when I state that I'm speculating.

And you should look at the actual definition of speculation.

> "The forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence"



> You have your opinion. I think your judgement is off and you have put me in the same box as you have put her.


I think my judgement is on and I think some people are turning a willful blind eye to it because they see themselves in her, identify with her, and therefore want to protect her so they don't feel bad about themselves.

I don't put you in the same box as her at all. I don't think you are selfish, manipulative, narcissistic, or lazy. Quite the opposite.

How do you respond when faced with similar struggles? You may feel the same way, but I've never seen you respond as she did.



> You assign nefarious intent to her and have done so since the beginning while you were conflating her with other mommy bloggers.


Absolutely I do.

I don't give a crap what she does with her own life. 

She's encouraging others to make the same mistakes she has made. That is quite nefarious to me.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

jld said:


> I don't know, Blossom. Not sure I want to learn how to change the oil on the car.


LOL... I don't mean that...


----------



## Blossom Leigh

always_alone said:


> The accountability theme is interesting. My take is that ultimately we are only accountable to ourselves: my behaviour, my consequences.
> 
> Once we are deliberately holding others accountable, at least in a relationship setting, we've already lost: it has become a relationship of outlaw and cop, or parent and child, not one of love and partnership.
> 
> I wanted my SO to be accountable to me, but it had no effect whatsoever. He would just do what he wanted, and make sure that I didn't find out. And honestly, any attempt on his part to make me accountable would most likely be met in the same spirit.
> 
> Relationships need to be based on something other than cop/outlaw, warden/prisoner, parent/child, captain/underling, manager/employee, IMHO. I think it's more along the lines of generosity, acceptance, understanding, and empathy.


Its both.


----------



## jld

I am just amazed at all the judgment that is being heaped on this young mom.


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> I'm not side-stepping the point at all. Indeed, you're agreeing with me that the key issue of the article is her libido, not her housekeeping. If her housekeeping were the higher priority, then the article would probably be about that. I don't know why you insist that this means that mentioning them is some form of misdirection. It is not. It's just that these things are also part of the cumulative pile of things that she feels plethora of things she feels pressure about. So she mentions them. Big deal. It still doesn't mean that hiring a maid is going to bring her libido back, especially if the libido loss is because of resentment towards her husband.


It's a big deal because she cited such pressure as excuses to her husband and her audience.

And then didn't want those pressures alleviated.

Which is manipulative. Because it's like saying to my children that I can't pay attention to them because I have to go to work late tonight, and then I go to the bar with my friends instead.

It isn't what it is being portrayed as. And it's intentionally pleading to his sense of guilt and love for her.

And yet... she doesn't want these pressures to go away.

And she still finds caring about his day and loving her children as pressure.


> Personally, I find it kind of bizarre that anyone would think that the issue of that article has anything at all to do with housekeeping or cooking, or that all she needs to do is hire a maid and cook. How on earth is that going to solve her problem? The only reason I can think of is that it is interpreted solely as an issue of time. But there's always time for sex as long as there's motivation.


Read what I'm saying again, A_A. I'm really getting frustrated here.

Over and over again I say explicitly that the problem is not with those things. My problem is that she cites those things as part of the problem, but doesn't actually want those problematic things to be alleviated.

Because these things are part of her manipulation.


> Maybe it adds to her sense of being overwhelmed, in which case it just might ease some of the pressure she's feeling. And that could be productive for her overall sense of well-being. But it still won't address the core issue. And, it may even make things worse because then she has to worry about how to manage and pay for the cook and the maid.
> 
> And you're right, I did miss that clause about the husband's day and children's love. But, well, I still think what I said previously still holds.


I don't.


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> I am just amazed at all the judgment that is being heaped on this young mom.


I'm sure she's crying herself to the bank with all of these clicks.

Remember jld -- this is what she wants. We're all being played.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

jld said:


> I think we all have influence we can wield, and should do so wisely.
> 
> But accountability, to me, crosses a dangerous line. In certain circumstances, like illness, I can understand acting unilaterally. But in less dramatic situations, like every day life, I think we are better off sticking to influence, mainly through empathy and our own example, and transparent feedback.


I agree, accountability has to be exercised extremely carefully, timely AND accurately. Its why my plumbline is the Bible. It must be for the other person ultimately, which can be difficult when most of the time by the time they are needing that accountability, injury has happened to you and others making it emotional. It is hard to not self protect and maintain transparency during that kind of pain. And in some instances transparency is extremely dangerous. My situation was. Its why I'm glad you clarified with "every day" situations. Mine was far from everyday.


----------



## jld

I don't think she is a manipulator. I certainly do not think she is a narcissist.

She is a young mom with two preschoolers and a mostly absent husband, trying to do the best she can think of as she goes along. Just like most of us in our own lives.

I am amazed at the power she is being ascribed. Do people really think her husband is powerless, and a victim?


----------



## jld

marduk said:


> I'm sure she's crying herself to the bank with all of these clicks.
> 
> Remember jld -- this is what she wants. We're all being played.


Maybe we should stop. Maybe a mod could close the thread.

And for all the grief she has gotten in this thread, there should be some payoff for her!


----------



## jld

Blossom Leigh said:


> I agree, accountability has to be exercised extremely carefully, timely AND accurately. Its why my plumbline is the Bible. It must be for the other person ultimately, which can be difficult when most of the time by the time they are needing that accountability, injury has happened to you and others making it emotional. It is hard to not self protect and maintain transparency during that kind of pain. And in some instances transparency is extremely dangerous. My situation was. Its why I'm glad you clarified with "every day" situations. Mine was far from everyday.


Blossom, do you not think Jesus was all about leading through inspiration, mainly through empathy and transparency?


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> What's interesting to me is that it would seem that the ones most likely to be railing at her for how evil she is seem to be the ones most likely to be frustrated by their sexless relationships.
> 
> One can't help but wonder if there is a connection there...


Not me.

We're on a bit of a high point there, actually.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

jld said:


> Blossom, do you not think Jesus was all about leading through inspiration, mainly through empathy and transparency?


He came to fulfill the law, the Spirit of the law which is love and to satisfy God's Holiness, and all will be held to account of how we have done what God the Father says, which is the greatest commandment, Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your mind, with all your soul and the second like it, you shall love your neighbor as yourself. And we cannot do that apart from Christ himself.

ETA: His love compels us to love, rightly.


----------



## jld

marduk said:


> Not me.
> 
> We're on a bit of a high point there, actually.


Didn't Sarah say something similar, Blossom?


----------



## Blossom Leigh

jld said:


> Didn't Sarah say something similar, Blossom?


similar to?? can you expand?


----------



## jld

Blossom Leigh said:


> similar to?? can you expand?


Did you not post that she said their sex life came raging back shortly after her blog post? They are all better now?

Did I misunderstand that?


----------



## Blossom Leigh

jld said:


> Did you not post that she said their sex life came raging back shortly after her blog post? They are all better now?
> 
> Did I misunderstand that?


I did, just trying to figure out how you are connecting that to mardukes post.


----------



## jld

Blossom Leigh said:


> I did, just trying to figure out how you are connecting that to mardukes post.


He'll know.


----------



## Fozzy

EleGirl said:


> I think that she did just blurt it out in frustration.
> 
> That she thought about it over and over does not mean that she planned some great manipulation.
> 
> Some people go over things in their minds, thinking through scenarios in detail. But most things are never spoken or acted on. I'm like that. Do it all the time. *99% of what goes through my head is never spoken.*


That's like having a super power! Teach me?


----------



## ocotillo

jld said:


> ....do you not think Jesus was all about leading through inspiration, mainly through empathy and transparency?


I'm not a Christian, but as a student of the source languages, I'm pretty familiar with the stories and would agree with the statement above.

But I would also observe that few, if any ancient writings have as much to say about the destructive power of words and the need to bridle our tongues. The list of passages is quite long and neither gender is exempted. 

So I'm not sure if I'm understanding (Or maybe I'm completely misunderstanding) your stance.

It seems to me that to truly empathize with someone, you do have to lower your defenses and take what they say to heart. To do the opposite is to not truly hear what the other person is saying, which most of the ladies participating on this thread seem to agree was probably part of the problem.


----------



## EllisRedding

FrenchFry said:


> The benefits are staring me in the face every morning when I wake up and have a smiling husband in my face.


You don't think that is kinda creepy? I mean, yeah, if I woke up and my wife was lying there with a smile on her face I would think that was cool maybe the first time or two, but every morning, yikes ... at least give me a chance to brush my teeth ...


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> He'll know.


Actually I connect it with what she's actually saying, rather than empathizing and personally identifying with her emotional plight. Which is what I think you're doing -- her feelings resonate with you, therefore if I criticize her, I'm actually criticizing you.

Which makes you want to defend her.

She's nothing like my wife if that's what you're trying to say jld.


----------



## jld

marduk said:


> Actually I connect it with what she's actually saying, rather than empathizing and personally identifying with her emotional plight. Which is what I think you're doing -- her feelings resonate with you, therefore if I criticize her, I'm actually criticizing you.
> 
> Which makes you want to defend her.
> 
> She's nothing like my wife if that's what you're trying to say jld.


Okay, he didn't get it.

The parallel I was drawing was between two women that some may think are acting out of fear, trying to save their marriages.

Not sure there is any truth to that on either side, but thought it was worth noting.


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> Okay, he didn't get it.
> 
> The parallel I was drawing was between two women that some may think are acting out of fear, trying to save their marriages.
> 
> Not sure there is any truth to that on either side, but thought it was worth noting.


Here's the thing, jld.

*based purely on what she wrote, not what I or anybody reads into it.*

She acted on a place of fear of what she might lose without giving him a hall pass.

Not from a place of fear that her husband isn't happy.

The difference between these two is the difference between caring about oneself and caring about your partner.


----------



## Mr.Fisty

FrenchFry said:


> :rofl:
> 
> It's pretty cute. I laugh even harder because I'm such an ogre in the morning it's unreal. I don't know how he is smiling when I am scowling at waking up but it's cute.



You should one up him. Try putting on clown make-up, with a rubber nose, smiling at him with a big red smile. Then stuff a Big Mac in his face!


----------



## jld

marduk said:


> Here's the thing, jld.
> 
> *based purely on what she wrote, not what I or anybody reads into it.*
> 
> She acted on a place of fear of what she might lose without giving him a hall pass.
> 
> Not from a place of fear that her husband isn't happy.
> 
> The difference between these two is the difference between caring about oneself and caring about your partner.


Well, I think that's a matter of interpretation. Again.

Blossom, any chance MM is going to come here and set the record straight on these things?


----------



## jld

ocotillo said:


> I'm not a Christian, but as a student of the source languages, I'm pretty familiar with the stories and would agree with the statement above.
> 
> But I would also observe that few, if any ancient writings have as much to say about the destructive power of words and the need to bridle our tongues. The list of passages is quite long and neither gender is exempted.
> 
> So I'm not sure if I'm understanding (Or maybe I'm completely misunderstanding) your stance.
> 
> It seems to me that to truly empathize with someone, you do have to lower your defenses and take what they say to heart. To do the opposite is to not truly hear what the other person is saying, which most of the ladies participating on this thread seem to agree was probably part of the problem.


I know that Jesus said that it is from the heart that the mouth speaks. That was enlightened thinking for that time.

Ocotillo, if we can hear with our hearts, and not just our ears, we have a chance to communicate with people on a heart-changing level. I think that is what Jesus's approach was all about.

What I love about active listening is that it does not require we relax any of our boundaries, our principles. We can hear what other people are saying without agreeing with it. We can give them emotional oxygen without depriving ourselves of it.

I do think it is hard for some people to hear past words. It may not even be possible. Perhaps that is the reality the ancient writers were aware of when they wrote those texts.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

jld said:


> Well, I think that's a matter of interpretation. Again.
> 
> Blossom, any chance MM is going to come here and set the record straight on these things?


I can't know. 

She could be reading, she has the link. 

What she is choosing to do is unkown for now. 

She emailed me as late as 3:00 am the other day and seemed pretty interested, but because she hasn't joined in, I dont know if she will.

I did send her new questions a little while ago. Some she may not have considered. Waiting to hear.


----------



## jld

Thanks, Blossom.


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> Well, I think that's a matter of interpretation. Again.
> 
> Blossom, any chance MM is going to come here and set the record straight on these things?


If it's interpretation to take what she says as what she is actually saying, then sure.

In other words, I totally disagree.


----------



## jld

marduk said:


> If it's interpretation to take what she says as what she is actually saying, then sure.
> 
> In other words, I totally disagree.


She said she gave him the hall pass because she loved him.

Look, we see it differently. Without her coming here to clarify, I'm going to stick to my views. And I'm sure you'll stick to yours.


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> She said she gave him the hall pass because *she loved him.*
> 
> Look, we see it differently. Without her coming here to clarify, I'm going to stick to my views. And I'm sure you'll stick to yours.


You're saying what I'm saying jld.

How he felt about her offer or the situation was irrelevant.


----------



## ocotillo

jld said:


> I do think it is hard for some people to hear past words. It may not even be possible. Perhaps that is the reality the ancient writers were aware of when they wrote those texts.


Now that would be an interesting discussion.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

always_alone said:


> What's interesting to me is that it would seem that the ones most likely to be railing at her for how evil she is seem to be the ones most likely to be frustrated by their sexless relationships.
> 
> One can't help but wonder if there is a connection there...


 This is not how I see it at all.. I think anyone who WOULDN'T ACT LIKE HER would have a problem with her approach...... I would be more remorseful , trying to talk through things, hear his side..... after that vile came out of my mouth.. and I hurt my husband like that.. I find her attitude cold/ callous and not updating her blog, but using it on a darn Resume...she's proud of it !!.. this speaks VOLUMES to this woman's character..


----------



## EleGirl

The way I see it is that I don't know her entire situation. Just took that article as her having a melt down. People have meltdowns.

She has told Blossom that their sex life is back on track.

If she and her husband are ok with things, then good for them.


----------



## morituri

jld said:


> If you are unable to lead, then this may be your best option, and a favor to her.
> 
> You may want to consider the impact your own example has. Modeling owning your faults can be inspirational to the people around you, primarily your partner.


It's hard to lead when you've been stabbed in the back by your "follower". Unlike God, I bleed.



> Good question. Why did you? Did you look beyond the packaging? That is what often seems to trip men up.


She, was gentle, loving and kind towards everyone. She was a volunteer on some community service organizations that benefited the poor, elderly and sick. Was she attractive, INMNSHO yes but I've been around pretty women before and those that have nothing else to show for it become a big turn off once you see what's inside of them. So no I didn't just marry her for her looks.



> What I am telling them, first and foremost, is to look beyond the packaging with girls. You simply have to look hard at her character, if you want a quality wife.
> 
> Secondly, I am stressing that, as in most dealings with other people, you need to listen beyond their words, to hear what they are truly saying. This is the main problem in this discussion: the ability to see the forest for the trees.
> 
> Lastly, I am encouraging them to lead by example. Focus on what they can accomplish by owning their own power, instead of waiting for someone to make it easier.
> 
> I remember telling my older kids, when they would come to me saying that one or the other had "started it," that they could "finish it."


And you should be telling them that, above everything else, to always have respect for themselves. A man, or woman, who allows his/her spouse to disrespect them will never be attractive to them.



> Quite honestly, I do not see anything appealing about a man who would tell me that he needs me to carry him, which is what I hear from most of the men and some of the women in this conversation, nor the idea that we each own half the relationship (how exactly do you draw the lines?).


Most husbands never ask their wives to carry all of the load for them but to help them carry a bit of it and that is only fair. It's just as fair as when wives ask their husbands to help them with the kids and house chores. Why should a man sacrifice his life for his wife when she isn't willing to do the same for him?


----------



## Marduk

EleGirl said:


> The way I see it is that I don't know her entire situation. Just took that article as her having a melt down. People have meltdowns.
> 
> She has told Blossom that their sex life is back on track.
> 
> If she and her husband are ok with things, then good for them.


OK, a very public meltdown where she doesn't want people to be judgy...

Oh, and that she got paid for. And posted to her resume because it's totally sweet. And hurt her husband.

And it all turned out fabu. For realz.

Check.


----------



## ocotillo

EleGirl said:


> If she and her husband are ok with things, then good for them.


That really is the bottom line here.


----------



## Marduk

ocotillo said:


> That really is the bottom line here.


Actually, it isn't.

Besides the fact that the end never justifies the means...

Because it isn't about her and him. It's about all the other "hers" that think it's a good idea to do what she did.


----------



## Wazza

jld said:


> I don't think she is a manipulator. I certainly do not think she is a narcissist.
> 
> She is a young mom with two preschoolers and a mostly absent husband, trying to do the best she can think of as she goes along. Just like most of us in our own lives.
> 
> I am amazed at the power she is being ascribed.* Do people really think her husband is powerless, and a victim?*


No. 

You keep asking that. Not sure how to be any clearer that this is not just about power.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

morituri said:


> *Most husbands never ask their wives to carry all of the load for them but to help them carry a bit of it and that is only fair. It's just as fair as when wives ask their husbands to help them with the kids and house chores. Why should a man sacrifice his life for his wife when she isn't willing to do the same for him?*












Men have emotional needs too --so explains the author of His Needs, Her Needs:  *>>* The Most Important Emotional Needs  (men are included here )...

I've always resonated highly with this author -no matter the topic..... those are the lenses I see out of anyway.. even in the book - The Passionate Marriage: ..it's the same thing.. reading this years ago opened my eyes WIDE to how I hurt my husband over NOT fully grasping his emotional need with more of my desire...I learned later...he felt less loved by me...even if he played it down .. I guess he was playing the Superior man as best he could.......but yeah.. men have needs too.. We, as wives, have a role to play in fulfilling them.. 

Our needs will not always be the same or on the same scale, true...but that's the challenge of it all.. to reach out there & fulfill them .. for each others happiness.. 

I would not at all be happy if I felt I had Non to "little effect" on my husband.. maybe this is not the normal position.. but it makes ME feel good, purposeful that I have THAT power too.. we both hold a key to each other's enrichment in Love & marriage... it's not just the man's role...


----------



## Wazza

jld said:


> I thought what you were saying in your post is that you readily see your own contributions, but only afterwards see hers. With Dug and me, it is the opposite.


My main point was that we recognise both of us have contributed.

There was a side point that we dont always understand the other's perspective and needs so we dont always fully see what the other is contributing. I am sure the same would exist in your marriage. There is no way a stay at home mum and a working dad could totally understand each other's perspectives.

Its also kind of what is going on in this thread, where some posters can very much see the sacrificies the blogger is making in motherhood, others can readily see the unmet need of the husband. And the discussion is largely an argument about which side is valid, not an attempt to talk about ways of recognising the validity of both sides and work with both.


----------



## morituri

I wonder what SOME of the female TAM members comments would have been if the blogger had been the one wanting sex but her husband had told her to go find herself a boyfriend but not fall in love with him. Somehow I don't think they would be as understanding of him, as they were with her.


----------



## Tall Average Guy

EleGirl said:


> The way I see it is that I don't know her entire situation. Just took that article as her having a melt down. People have meltdowns.


A meltdown to drive page hits.


----------



## Marduk

morituri said:


> I wonder what SOME of the female TAM members comments would have been if the blogger had been the one wanting sex but her husband had told her to go find herself a boyfriend but not fall in love with him. Somehow I don't think they would be as understanding of him, as they were with her.


Funny, for once I didn't think gender really played a role.

Maybe it's just me.


----------



## EllisRedding

morituri said:


> I wonder what SOME of the female TAM members comments would have been if the blogger had been the one wanting sex but her husband had told her to go find herself a boyfriend but not fall in love with him. Somehow I don't think they would be as understanding of him, as they were with her.


Funny, I actually started to post something similar, basically swap genders (i.e. the H is the blogger and the W is the sex crazed wife) and see what kind of reaction you would get.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

EleGirl said:


> The way I see it is that I don't know her entire situation.* Just took that article as her having a melt down. People have meltdowns.
> 
> She has told Blossom that their sex life is back on track.
> 
> If she and her husband are ok with things, then good for them*.


Would you leave an ugly meltdown with no update on the net for all to view ... and use it on your resume to....really ??? Do women here agree with this ?? 

Just a meltdown.. I can see it.. it happens.. I am hung up on this updating thing..... or why she hasn't removed this -if all is well & good NOW....at least update.. or replace it with something that can ACTUALLY HELP other women & their husbands ...to how they personally worked through it.. why hide this......give her readers some MEAT.... 

Wouldn't a true writer want to give "*the Rest of the story*".. be Open with her readers.... especially after it has caused so much backlash... also out of respect for her husband...I just can't see that being left on the net ... can't get past it in my mind why anyone would do that.. unless they love the controversy, the clicks...it's really NOT about helping other women who feel like this.. she is trying to build another persona... it's about abrasive ranting... or something.. this will pull in that sort of audience..

I remember yrs ago, coming across this website where it was dedicated to ranting about your Mother in law.. but the ranting here is about "husbands, kids and married life"..


----------



## morituri

FrenchFry said:


> We would be in any variation of a red pill post with the men saying it's totally okay.
> 
> Weird.


I used the word "some" while you did not. Am I to understand that the red pill post ALL the men were in defense of Athol Kay's misogynistic comments?


----------



## ocotillo

marduk said:


> Because it isn't about her and him. It's about all the other "hers" that think it's a good idea to do what she did.


Is there something you would like to see happen other than what has happened? She wrote the piece and people weighed in on it. Even in front of what was an ostensibly sympathetic audience at scarymommy.com, the tide of that opinion was pretty clear. 

People can take or leave leave whatever they want from that, but ultimately they have to make their own choices in life. And deal with the fallout.


----------



## Marduk

ocotillo said:


> Is there something you would like to see happen other than what has happened? She wrote the piece and people weighed in on it. Even in front of what was an ostensibly sympathetic audience at scarymommy.com, the tide of that opinion was pretty clear.
> 
> People can take or leave leave whatever they want from that, but ultimately they have to make their own choices in life. And deal with the fallout.


By that standard, everyone should be allowed to say whatever they want and never be challenged, because its a lot nicer to not be challenged.

The right to free speech doesn't mean the right to not be wrong.


----------



## Marduk

FrenchFry said:


> Why wouldn't it be gendered?
> 
> Dread game is dread game, it just looks different.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I just didn't see it as a gender debate, personally.

I didn't care that it was a woman posting it.

In fact, I may have been more harsh if it had been a man.

I'm not sure why. My own biases, I guess.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

EllisRedding said:


> Funny, I actually started to post something similar, basically swap genders (i.e. the H is the blogger and the W is the sex crazed wife) and see what kind of reaction you would get.


If my husband rejected me or talked to me like that, it would have destructed our marriage and me saying this is no little thing.. we have one of those marriages to die for.. I would NOT have been able to forgive that.... he'd have to beg & grovel.. I would have the same response.. this would be utterly crushing to a woman who is supposed to be the Object of his desire.. 

I think it is even harder on women -for this reason.. you will find many a men whining they don't get enough sex. when a woman can not arouse desire in her man.. it kills something inside of us... for us to be around other women bi*ching & moaning their husbands want them.. while she suffers cause her husband finds her repulsive.. No that would not be working for me I'll tell you...

I look upon sexual intimacy as one of the greatest gifts in marriage ...I didn't wait years to give myself to a man who was going to reject me & be repulsed by me.. I'd find a way to leave him. That's my take.


----------



## Marduk

FrenchFry said:


> It shows our biases for sure because I immediately saw it as female dread.
> 
> Nobody likes it. Nobody does. But both sides will argue to the death if it worked for them, one way or another.


I would lose my crap if some dude told me that he struggled to care about his wife's day or love his children.

And then pranced around like he's the king because he had the courage to say it.


----------



## morituri

One thing I don't believe that has been brought up is that she uses her name, Sarah Hosseini. Now IF that is her true name and IF she took on her husband's last name, then she has exposed his identity to the whole world. I highly doubt that any husband would give permission to his wife to go ahead and use his identity to air out their dirty laundry all over the web. IF violation of his privacy is the case here, then that is one more ding against her.


----------



## jld

Okay, looks like someone needs to get in touch with her husband, too, and get his take on this.


----------



## ocotillo

marduk said:


> By that standard, everyone should be allowed to say whatever they want and never be challenged, because its a lot nicer to not be challenged.


I'm not sure I'm understanding. She was told point blank that she was wrong over and over. And by other women, no less.


----------



## ocotillo

morituri said:


> One thing I don't believe that has been brought up is that she uses her name, Sarah Hosseini. Now IF that is her true name and IF she took on her husband's last name then she has exposed his identity to the whole world....


It's pretty obvious that he gave his permission.


----------



## morituri

ocotillo said:


> It's pretty obvious that he gave his permission.


Do you know that for a fact?


----------



## morituri

EllisRedding said:


> Funny, I actually started to post something similar, basically swap genders (i.e. the H is the blogger and the W is the sex crazed wife) and see what kind of reaction you would get.


An excoriating one and IMNSHO, very well deserved one against the husband.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

I have the latest response... I'm going to cut and past my original questions and then her response... 

*One question I have about your husbands pressure. 

In hindsight, do you feel his pressure was reasonable or unreasonable?

It seems normal for a man to want sex when he returns from being gone for six weeks, what about that desire was over the top for you? Frequency? How he asked? Reactions to rejection?

The debate is still ongoing over there and my interest is giving the most accurate info as possible.

And in hindsight, would you have chosen a different route?

Also, did your husband back off in honoring your space or did he back off because he felt hurt?*



Hi!




It's hard to figure out if my husband's pressure was reasonable or unreasonable because of the immense amount of pressure I was putting on myself.




I will say, his wording and tone were the most bothersome and difficult to respond positively or favorably (or sexually) to. 




I don't regret saying what I said to my husband because of the beautiful marriage we have now. The beauty that came from such an ugly place. What if in had never offered that hurtful hall pass? Would be in such a good place now? I don't think so. I'm so happy we're in a new "season" of our relationship. It wouldn't have been possible without that horrific hall pass business.




Initially my husband was hurt. For like 24-48 hours. Then the light bulb turned on- it was like TIIINNGG!!




He got it. And he gave me the space I had been asking for.




This is so non- specific, so apologies!




I can only recount our experience, unfortunately, it follows no real formula.




Hope this helps,




Sarah


*And that I will have to leave y'all to it. I have difficult family business coming my way and it will take all of my focus, so I have to leave TAM for a while UNLESS Sunday goes the opposite of what I think its going to go.*


----------



## always_alone

marduk said:


> Read what I'm saying again, A_A. I'm really getting frustrated here.
> 
> Over and over again I say explicitly that the problem is not with those things. My problem is that she cites those things as part of the problem, but doesn't actually want those problematic things to be alleviated.
> 
> Because these things are part of her manipulation.


I'm sorry, but I still find it odd that you are determined that she hire a cook and a maid. Would that really have made you like her more? Because she outsourced some of the household tasks? 

Just out of curiosity, why are all of these tasks hers to do? And her responsibility to figure out in the first place? Isn't that too a form of pressure?

Maybe he doesn't pressure her to cook or clean, but I don't see him volunteering to help either. So maybe it has absolutely nothing to do with the problem? Maybe, just maybe it isn't actually a manipulative tactic, but just a few more items on the list of things running around in her head?


----------



## always_alone

Fozzy said:


> That's like having a super power! Teach me?


It's quite easy. First, have a lot going on in your mind. Then, don't do anything about it.

That's it! Not even two steps needed.


----------



## always_alone

marduk said:


> Here's the thing, jld.
> 
> *based purely on what she wrote, not what I or anybody reads into it.*
> 
> She acted on a place of fear of what she might lose without giving him a hall pass.
> 
> Not from a place of fear that her husband isn't happy.
> 
> The difference between these two is the difference between caring about oneself and caring about your partner.


The way I read it is that she is struggling with the idea that her whole marriage, her whole life, rests on the fact that her libido is gone. And, yes, she fears she cannot meet his demand. 

Now, clearly, there are a lot of people who do think it *is*, or at least should be, the end of her marriage. That she ought not feel this way and she better step up pronto because he'll leave her in the dust.

What I find interesting about this, is that *this* is exactly the pressure she is reacting to: put out or get out. Yet, even those who are criticizing her, calling her manipulative and terrible for trying to suggest that maybe not *everything* in her relationship rests on sex, are wielding exactly that same pressure. Put out or get out.

What you are calling manipulation here assumes that she has never actually conversed with her husband about any of this stuff, and that her only communication on the topic was the hall pass offer. 

And it strikes me that you are deliberately overlooking the fact that she does care how he feels, and she does want his needs to be met, otherwise, she wouldn't have been spending any time at all thinking about how he could also get his needs met within the context of the marriage.

Would you have been happier with her if she had just said, "look, I'm sorry, I can't do this anymore. I can't meet your needs Maybe we need to split"?


----------



## Fozzy

always_alone said:


> It's quite easy. First, have a lot going on in your mind. Then, don't do anything about it.
> 
> That's it! Not even two steps needed.


I'm quite good at that second part.


----------



## always_alone

SimplyAmorous said:


> This is not how I see it at all.. I think anyone who WOULDN'T ACT LIKE HER would have a problem with her approach...... I would be more remorseful , trying to talk through things, hear his side..... after that vile came out of my mouth.. and I hurt my husband like that.. I find her attitude cold/ callous and not updating her blog, but using it on a darn Resume...she's proud of it !!.. this speaks VOLUMES to this woman's character..


She's a writer, SA, and as a writer you have to stand out from the crowd, get noticed. As others have been calling it, it's click bait. And so of course she's proud of it --just look at the response she's getting.

And it's a blog, not a self-help column. There is no pretense to advice, no "hey girls, just act like me if you want to keep your man in line", no hint of any kind that this article might help anyone in any way. It doesn't claim to tell the whole story, it isn't an afternoon special with a moral. It is a simple vent, with no claims to truth other than a "fvck you" to the plethora of advice that says put out or get out. 

As other people have pointed out, she doesn't owe us anything. The only person she has to be right with is her husband. And I can pretty much guarantee that she has talked with him about what is okay and what is not okay for her to make public in her writing. If she hasn't, they both have much bigger problems than the hall pass offer.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

always_alone said:


> She's a writer, SA, and as a writer you have to stand out from the crowd, get noticed. As others have been calling it, it's click bait. And so of course she's proud of it --just look at the response she's getting.
> 
> And it's a blog, not a self-help column. There is no pretense to advice, no "hey girls, just act like me if you want to keep your man in line", no hint of any kind that this article might help anyone in any way. It doesn't claim to tell the whole story, it isn't an afternoon special with a moral. It is a simple vent, with no claims to truth other than a "fvck you" to the plethora of advice that says put out or get out.
> 
> As other people have pointed out, she doesn't owe us anything. The only person she has to be right with is her husband. And I can pretty much guarantee that she has talked with him about what is okay and what is not okay for her to make public in her writing. If she hasn't, they both have much bigger problems than the hall pass offer.


Oh I get it Loud and clear....You are absolutely RIGHT Always Alone....I agree with all you say here... you know what else it speaks... what a pathetic waste of time, emotion, or energy it's been for so many to offer their sincere concern or thoughts to her marital dilemma...she gets a kick out of it all !...and yeah.. her husband may be right on board with that! I guess she married well, despite the roller coaster.


----------



## always_alone

FrenchFry said:


> It shows our biases for sure because I immediately saw it as female dread.
> 
> Nobody likes it. Nobody does. But both sides will argue to the death if it worked for them, one way or another.


Huh, that's interesting. I don't read it as dread because I don't see it as a ploy, or as a deliberate effort to achieve an aim.

When I asked my SO whether he wanted to get it elsewhere, I genuinely thought he would. It was not at all aimed at dread.

I mean, I was looking for a solution to *my* problem, but I don't think that automatically means I care nothing for his, or that I'm playing games to get my way.


----------



## always_alone

SimplyAmorous said:


> Oh I get it Loud and clear....You are absolutely RIGHT Always Alone....I agree with all you say here... you know what else it speaks... what a pathetic waste of time, emotion, or energy it's been for so many to offer their sincere concern or thoughts to her marital dilemma...she gets a kick out of it all !...and yeah.. her husband may be right on board with that! I guess she married well, despite the roller coaster.


Perhaps, but this conversation is no longer really about her. She is just the foil that allows us to explore our own feelings and reactions about a difficult topic, without having to actually live through it.

She gave us an opportunity.


----------



## farsidejunky

always_alone said:


> Huh, that's interesting. I don't read it as dread because I don't see it as a ploy, or as a deliberate effort to achieve an aim.
> 
> When I asked my SO whether he wanted to get it elsewhere, I genuinely thought he would. It was not at all aimed at dread.
> 
> I mean, I was looking for a solution to *my* problem, but I don't think that automatically means I care nothing for his, or that I'm playing games to get my way.


So it is the intent and not the tactics that classify as a dread game?


----------



## always_alone

farsidejunky said:


> So it is the intent and not the tactics that classify as a dread game?


To my mind, yes.

We all sometimes have dreadful things to say. If they are motivated by our authentic feelings and beliefs, then surely we have every right, indeed need, to communicate them and work through them. If they are motivate by genuine concerns for the other, then even if we're wrong, we are looking out their well being.

But if it is motivated by selfish gain, to get what we want without concern for the other's perspective then it is just a game. An attempt to modify behaviour or contol others to suit ourselves, rather than respect for them as autonomous selves, with thoughts and feelings of their own.

IOW, if I really thought this blogger was as callous and manipulative as some here are painting her to be, I wouldn't like her either. And I wouldn't waste my time sharing a different perspective. It's just that I don't see it this way.


----------



## always_alone

farsidejunky said:


> So it is the intent and not the tactics that classify as a dread game?


I would add that if it is an expression of our authentic feelings or an effort to help someone else, that it isn't really "tactics".

I do know some people who are very strategy driven in how they relate to others, and they are all selfish, inconsiderate, and only about what's in it for them.

Once you are employing tactics in your relationships, be they love relationships or friendships, you've already stopped relating, IMHO.


----------



## farsidejunky

A_A:

Through the prism of what you have written, how do you see it applying to destabilizing?


----------



## Wazza

always_alone said:


> Huh, that's interesting. I don't read it as dread because I don't see it as a ploy, or as a deliberate effort to achieve an aim.
> 
> When I asked my SO whether he wanted to get it elsewhere, I genuinely thought he would. It was not at all aimed at dread.
> 
> I mean, I was looking for a solution to *my* problem, but I don't think that automatically means I care nothing for his, or that I'm playing games to get my way.


i agree with you that it's not manipulation. 

I don know your SO, but several of us here have said that sex is not just physical. Do you think the hall pass idea could work with such a guy, or is it asking them to form an emotional attachment with someone else?

The guy can take pressure off, and I agree they should, but realistically I also think there is a limit to how much this can be done and what degree of celibacy someone can manage before they will be unfaithful.

This celibacy risk applies to both partners by the way. Adding an extra dimension to the discussion, my wife went through a period of reduced desire following the birth of our children. I did everything that has been discussed here....sitting back, trying not to pressure, taking on more of the housework to lighten her load etc. None of it brought our sex life back. The thing that reignited her desire was the first time her affair partner kissed her.....there were many factors at work in that situation, but I am sure unmet need (sexual as well as emotional) was one. And of course it didn't simplify the task of working on a mutually agreeable sex life.

Point being, I get why you resent the pressure, but the risks are real, and not always in the guy's control.

We are sexual beings and a lot of our long term relationships will go through sexual ups and downs. A promise of fidelity is a promise to meet each other's needs, and to refrain from meeting your own outside the marriage. Surely at times that involves an effort of will from both sides to compromise.

It's appropriate and helpful for you to defend the reasonableness of her position. But are there any things you think she could have done to improve the situation?


----------



## Cosmos

Wazza said:


> It's appropriate and helpful for you to defend the reasonableness of her position. But are there any things you think she could have done to improve the situation?


I think the only thing she could've done was possibly communicate more before she actually found sex "repulsive" and seek counselling... She'd already had her hormones checked and tried to 'just do it anyway,' and it had made matters worse for her. I think by the time she had the hall pass talk with him, she was at the end of her tether.


----------



## always_alone

Wazza said:


> I don know your SO, but several of us here have said that sex is not just physical. Do you think the hall pass idea could work with such a guy, or is it asking them to form an emotional attachment with someone else?
> 
> The guy can take pressure off, and I agree they should, but realistically I also think there is a limit to how much this can be done and what degree of celibacy someone can manage before they will be unfaithful.


I don't think the hall pass idea would work for anything, except perhaps as a bomb to explode, to force some kind of acknowledgment of what her side of the story is. In their case, both of them already knew quite well what his side was, and she was the one not being heard.

Otherwise, she never would've gone there in the first place.

As for my situation, I don't resent the pressure, as I am not under any. In my household, it's my SO who is under the pressure to perform, --or at least was until I backed off --and I can tell you that it only made matters worse. Not better.

This is not to say backing off will make things better either, as it's super easy to just assume someone's happy when they aren't constantly whining at you.

So what's a frustrated person to do? If I really had the answer to that, I'd be a millionaire guru, not a random Internet peanut gallery nobody. But adding pressure to pressure isn't going to solve the problem when pressure *is* the problem.

And I get why it's super hurtful to not be desired by your spouse. I really do. But did you notice that you are completely incensed at her offer of a hall pass, but what you are coming back with is the threat of cheating? Tell me: how are these things different? Why is one a sign of a selfish, inconsiderate, and terrible person, but the other is just the understandable consequences of that selfish, terrible, inconsiderate person? 

Could she have done anything differently? Probably. But she did write about trying various things and having them not work. When we get desperate, we start running to extremes.


----------



## always_alone

farsidejunky said:


> A_A:
> 
> Through the prism of what you have written, how do you see it applying to destabilizing?


If the situation is untenable for you, I think you have a right, and possibly even an obligation to make that known as clearly as possible.

If you are leveraging fear and insecurity to exact a particular behaviour, then I think you would have no right or justification at all to suppose you are on the high road, trying to express your love, as opposed to focused on sexual release.

Would you really want to have your sex life based in fear and anxiety?

I'm guessing not.


----------



## techmom

This mommy blogger is at the end of her rope, and for good reasons. Her husband is away a lot because he travels for his job, so she is stuck with the kids alone. She has to deal with pressures of maintaining a household while he's away. Also, they spend very little time together, which means not much bonding which would create closeness and emotional intimacy which most women need. I would say that he is not doing his job in maintaining this emotional bond, however he wants her to be ready for sex. This creates resentment.

I'm glad that she found her libido, but she had to use a form of dread game to demonstrate to him that the problem needs to be addressed immediately. The hall pass was a way of letting him know that she felt used for just sex, he didn't seem interested in establishing an emotional bond with her while he was home. He just wanted to jump straight to sex. The hall pass was useful to get her point across.

Just like men who are in sexless relationships use dread game to create insecurity and fear in their wives so the can get more intimacy, this wife used the hall pass to let her husband know that she felt no bond with him anymore, so if he had sex outside of marriage it didn't make any difference to her. Both methods are manipulative.

So, does the end result justify the means?


----------



## Wazza

always_alone said:


> I don't think the hall pass idea would work for anything, except perhaps as a bomb to explode, to force some kind of acknowledgment of what her side of the story is. In their case, both of them already knew quite well what his side was, and she was the one not being heard.
> 
> Otherwise, she never would've gone there in the first place.
> 
> As for my situation, I don't resent the pressure, as I am not under any. In my household, it's my SO who is under the pressure to perform, --or at least was until I backed off --and I can tell you that it only made matters worse. Not better.
> 
> This is not to say backing off will make things better either, as it's super easy to just assume someone's happy when they aren't constantly whining at you.
> 
> So what's a frustrated person to do? If I really had the answer to that, I'd be a millionaire guru, not a random Internet peanut gallery nobody. But adding pressure to pressure isn't going to solve the problem when pressure *is* the problem.
> 
> And I get why it's super hurtful to not be desired by your spouse. I really do. But did you notice that you are completely incensed at her offer of a hall pass, but what you are coming back with is the threat of cheating? Tell me: how are these things different? Why is one a sign of a selfish, inconsiderate, and terrible person, but the other is just the understandable consequences of that selfish, terrible, inconsiderate person?
> 
> Could she have done anything differently? Probably. But she did write about trying various things and having them not work. When we get desperate, we start running to extremes.


I'm not much interested in the blog. I don't believe it is a factual account. More interested in the collective wisdom of the group here. I'm trying to get a list of things people can try into the thread, for the sake of others who may be struggling with this. 

Ellis earlier talked about communication and compromise, and I agree.

You and I both agree the hall pass is a bad idea, yes? I am not personally incensed at it. I just think it is ill conceived on many levels and I don't see how anything but bad can come from it. 

I think in a sitution like this, there is pressure on both sides in a relationship, and there is a degree of selfishness from both sides, and I'm not much interested in keeping score. The husband can and should back off, which is reasonable, but the husband also has needs. The husand can also try, in general to be more supportive.

If it is reasonable that the husband compromise on his desires (not demand sex whenever he wants) is it also reasonable that the wife compromise on hers (perform sex acts as a means to meet his needs even though she doesn't personally feel like it)? My wife and I do that now from time to time, and it simply isn't an issue. Why does it become an issue in some circumstances? Is there anything else the wife feeling low desire can do to make things better?

I don't think there's a perfect solution, but I think both sides are going to have to give a little if they want to stay married.


----------



## Wazza

techmom said:


> This mommy blogger is at the end of her rope, and for good reasons. Her husband is away a lot because he travels for his job, so she is stuck with the kids alone. She has to deal with pressures of maintaining a household while he's away. Also, they spend very little time together, which means not much bonding which would create closeness and emotional intimacy which most women need. I would say that he is not doing his job in maintaining this emotional bond, however he wants her to be ready for sex. This creates resentment.
> 
> I'm glad that she found her libido, but she had to use a form of dread game to demonstrate to him that the problem needs to be addressed immediately. The hall pass was a way of letting him know that she felt used for just sex, he didn't seem interested in establishing an emotional bond with her while he was home. He just wanted to jump straight to sex. The hall pass was useful to get her point across.
> 
> Just like men who are in sexless relationships use dread game to create insecurity and fear in their wives so the can get more intimacy, this wife used the hall pass to let her husband know that she felt no bond with him anymore, so if he had sex outside of marriage it didn't make any difference to her. Both methods are manipulative.
> 
> So, does the end result justify the means?


I do think making time alone is a big one, and I think both sides have to work on that. What about non-sexual touch? What role do you think that plays?


----------



## Cosmos

I read this article today and thought of this thread...



> _
> A relationship needs intimacy. Regardless of whether it's a physical intimacy or an emotional intimacy, your relationship will slowly wither and die without it. This is where it gets tricky. Because your relationship actually needs both types of intimacy.
> 
> Read more here:- http://www.counselling-directory.org.uk/counselloradvice10066.html
> _



I particularly agree with:-



> _No one wants to even attempt to be intimate- on a physical or emotional level- with a person they are unhappy with_.


When someone's emotional needs are not being met and / or they're not feeling heard, the likelihood of them wanting to fulfil their partner's physical needs is no longer a priority to them. In fact, feeling pressured into doing so (as in the blogger's case) can even exacerbate the situation.

IMO, emotional intimacy is a basic requirement for maintaining a healthy physical relationship, and it isn't something that can be simply ignored or overridden in order to fulfil the physical needs of the other partner...


----------



## techmom

Wazza said:


> I do think making time alone is a big one, and I think both sides have to work on that. What about non-sexual touch? What role do you think that plays?


Non sexual touch comes with establishing emotional intimacy. I wouldn't want to be touched by a person who I felt didn't hear me or ignored my needs. Or someone who I resented.


----------



## Wazza

techmom said:


> Non sexual touch comes with establishing emotional intimacy. I wouldn't want to be touched by a person who I felt didn't hear me or ignored my needs. Or someone who I resented.


That makes sense. I also find that a useful barometer. If Mrs Wazza is avoiding touch, its a sign something is up, and an opportunity to catch a little problem before it gets big.

What do you regard as sexual or non sexual? Is it simply where you are touched? How? Or the context? Holding hands, spooning, kissing...can these all be non sexual? If so, are you able to talk about how?


----------



## techmom

Wazza said:


> That makes sense. I also find that a useful barometer. If Mrs Wazza is avoiding touch, its a sign something is up, and an opportunity to catch a little problem before it gets big.
> 
> What do you regard as sexual or non sexual? Is it simply where you are touched? How? Or the context? Holding hands, spooning, kissing...can these all be non sexual? If so, are you able to talk about how?


I define non sexual touch as a hug, holding hands, or a kiss on the cheek. Any touch that you can do with a family member. Problem is that when the non sexual touch turns into pressure for sexual touch from a husband who you feel disconnected from emotionally. It would be an invasive touch, because it may lead to more when the wife does not want it to. Here is where the wife starts to deny the non sexual touch because it feels like pressure because the husband feels denied. Then the negative spiral starts, the man feels denied and instead of re-establishing the emotional bond he will go straight to the sex.

I don't believe that the only way to express love is to have sex. Men who are emotionally stunted tend to feel this way because for their entire lives they were not encouraged to express their feelings other than anger or strength. They were not allowed to cry. So sex becomes their vehicle for these unexpressed emotions, men are allowed to be horny but not scared, frightened or lonely. 

It is like a person who stuffs their emotions down by becoming a overeater. They use food to dampen uncomfortable feelings. A person who is more in tune with their emotions and not threatened by them utilize other ways of expressing and receiving love. Then both partners don't have to rely on sex as the only way to express love. They will both have sex, but they will also be emotionally fulfilled as well.


----------



## ocotillo

always_alone said:


> Tell me: how are these things different?


AA,

I'd guess it would depend on the extent to which an affair is about satisfying an emotional vs. a physical need. 

--Hardly an expert, but my understanding is that affairs very often do start off as a breakdown in emotional boundaries and that the "high" of interacting with someone who seems to understand/appreciate/connect with you better than your spouse precedes the physical aspect.


----------



## Cosmos

techmom said:


> I define non sexual touch as a hug, holding hands, or a kiss on the cheek. Any touch that you can do with a family member. Problem is that when the non sexual touch turns into pressure for sexual touch from a husband who you feel disconnected from emotionally. It would be an invasive touch, because it may lead to more when the wife does not want it to. Here is where the wife starts to deny the non sexual touch because it feels like pressure because the husband feels denied. Then the negative spiral starts, the man feels denied and instead of re-establishing the emotional bond he will go straight to the sex.


And this is where the catch 22 sets in. The W loses interest in sex because her emotional needs aren't being met, and the H loses interest in fulfilling her emotional needs because his physical needs aren't being met!

Communication and re-establishing emotional intimacy is the only way forward, IMO, because without either they're in a never ending lose / lose situation.


----------



## morituri

Cosmos said:


> And this is where the catch 22 sets in. The W loses interest in sex because her emotional needs aren't being met, and the H loses interest in fulfilling her emotional needs because his physical needs aren't being met!
> 
> Communication and re-establishing emotional intimacy is the only way forward, IMO, because without either they're in a never ending lose / lose situation.


But for that to occur, resentment has to be conquered first by both spouses.


----------



## techmom

Cosmos said:


> And this is where the catch 22 sets in. The W loses interest in sex because her emotional needs aren't being met, and the H loses interest in fulfilling her emotional needs because his physical needs aren't being met!
> 
> Communication and re-establishing emotional intimacy is the only way forward, IMO, because without either they're in a never ending lose / lose situation.


Exactly. When we first decide to enter a relationship with someone, we invest emotionally first. One night stands are started this way as well, because people would not screw someone they don't like or resent. Most people become emotionally invested first. This is why emotional affairs are even more harmful than physical affairs. This blogger was vulnerable to an emotional affair.

If the blogger's husband stated that he was going to let her start an emotionally charged relationship with someone outside of the marriage to get her needs met, would that be acceptable? Maybe not, but his actions suggested that a sexual relationship was more important to him.


----------



## Wazza

techmom said:


> Men who are emotionally stunted tend to feel this way because for their entire lives they were not encouraged to express their feelings other than anger or strength. They were not allowed to cry. So sex becomes their vehicle for these unexpressed emotions, men are allowed to be horny but not scared, frightened or lonely.


I need to think about this a bit more, and I'd be intereted in how other guys find it.

I certainly have no problem feeling, admitting and expressing emotions. But I cry rarely. It's not that sex is my only vehicle for emotions But there is a completeness when a connection is expressed sexually that is missing otherwise. My sexual experience is very limited, so I don't know from personal experience if sex without love is hollow, but I am told it is. 

Do women here find that sex adds to the completeness of a connection in any way?

JLD, I'd be interested in how Techmom's idea of a man who cannot express emotion being stunted fits with your idea of a strong man you don't have to carry. Would you find it a turn off for a guy to admit to being lonely and scared?


----------



## Wazza

Cosmos said:


> And this is where the catch 22 sets in. The W loses interest in sex because her emotional needs aren't being met, and the H loses interest in fulfilling her emotional needs because his physical needs aren't being met!
> 
> Communication and re-establishing emotional intimacy is the only way forward, IMO, because without either they're in a never ending lose / lose situation.


Men have both physical and emotional needs, and I believe women do too. We've spoken a bit about men's emotions. What does physical need feel like for a woman? Can you even begin to put it into words?


----------



## morituri

The reason why I feel antipathy for the blogger is that she was inviting her husband to start an affair and destroy her marriage. Go to the CWI forum and witness the devastation that married women and men suffer from their spouses who had affairs. The betrayed spouses never told their cheating spouses "Honey I love you so much and that is why I'm giving you permission to have an affair". She is lucky that her husband didn't take her up on her offer and raised the stakes by falling in love with another woman. 

Unless you have been betrayed by your spouse, like I have and many others, you have no frickin' idea what the potential this blogger's hall pass really represents. 

Its one thing for a tragic event to befall on you without asking for it and quite another to search for it and invite it into your, and your loved ones, lives.


----------



## techmom

morituri said:


> The reason why I feel antipathy for the blogger is that she was inviting her husband to start an affair and destroy her marriage. Go to the CWI forum and witness the devastation that married women and men suffer from their spouses who had affairs. The betrayed spouses never told their cheating spouses "Honey I love you so much and that is why I'm giving you permission to have an affair". She is lucky that her husband didn't take her up on her offer and raised the stakes by falling in love with another woman.
> 
> Unless you have been betrayed by your spouse, like I have and many others, you have no frickin' idea what the potential this blogger's hall pass really represents.
> 
> Its one thing for a tragic event to befall on you without asking for it and quite another to search for it and invite it into your, and your loved ones, lives.


Affairs, emotional and physical, thrive in marriages where there is no emotional bond. No time spent together as just husband and wife. This blogger lost her emotional bond to her husband and despite previous efforts to revive her desire for him he made no effort to re-establish the emotional bond. This is crucial to making a marriage affair proof. The hall pass was a Hail Mary attempt to get his attention to her needs not being met. This marriage was on the rocks as it was, and it was not because of the hall pass.

This husband wanted to continue the marriage as is, as long as she put out sexually he would have been fine. When she stopped, he may have complained but by then it was due to lack of sex. The only thing that caught his attention was the possibility that she was done with him sexually, and that he would have to get those needs met elsewhere. Her prior complaints were ignored as long as the sex was there.

This is what she is stating, that she spent years being unfulfilled but the only time he noticed a problem was with lack of sex. This is a breeding ground for an affair even without the hall pass. It just took her to have the guts to verbalize it. Sometimes it gets to that point for the marriage to be saved.


----------



## always_alone

Wazza said:


> If it is reasonable that the husband compromise on his desires (not demand sex whenever he wants) is it also reasonable that the wife compromise on hers (perform sex acts as a means to meet his needs even though she doesn't personally feel like it)? My wife and I do that now from time to time, and it simply isn't an issue. Why does it become an issue in some circumstances? Is there anything else the wife feeling low desire can do to make things better?
> 
> I don't think there's a perfect solution, but I think both sides are going to have to give a little if they want to stay married.


I absolutely agree with he last sentence, but I personally do not want my SO to perform sexual acts just because I want sexual contact. It makes me feel even more disconnected, more inclined to think I might as well just have a dildo. I would rather meet my own needs.

I really can't fathom sex as a way to connect, an expression of love, when one half of the equation is just punching the clock.

YMMV.


----------



## always_alone

ocotillo said:


> AA,
> 
> I'd guess it would depend on the extent to which an affair is about satisfying an emotional vs. a physical need.
> 
> --Hardly an expert, but my understanding is that affairs very often do start off as a breakdown in emotional boundaries and that the "high" of interacting with someone who seems to understand/appreciate/connect with you better than your spouse precedes the physical aspect.


That's certainly one reason to have an affair, but is by no means the only one.

My thinking is this: he has needs that are not being met. She suggests sleeping with another (with the caveat of no emotional attachment). He suggests affair (perhaps with emotional attachment).

Are we saying that his solution is the better, more understandable one, more reasonable one because it allows him emotional attachment to the person he is enjoying his hall pass with? That her big mistake was denying him, or attempting to control those emotional connections?


----------



## morituri

techmom said:


> Affairs, emotional and physical, thrive in marriages where there is no emotional bond. No time spent together, just husband and wife. This blogger lost her emotional bond to her husband and despite previous efforts to revive her desire for him he made no effort to re-establish the emotional bond. This is crucial to making a marriage affair proof. The hall pass was a Hail Mary attempt to get his attention to her needs not being met. This marriage was on the rocks as it was, and it was not because of the hall pass.
> 
> This husband wanted to continue the marriage as is, as long as she put out sexually he would have been fine. When she stopped, he may have complained but by then it was due to lack of sex. The only thing that caught his attention was the possibility that she was done with him sexually, and that he would have to get those needs met elsewhere. Her prior complaints were ignored as long as the sex was there.
> 
> This is what she is stating, that she spent years being unfulfilled but the only time he noticed a problem was with lack of sex. This is a breeding ground for an affair even without the hall pass. It just took her to have the guts to verbalize it. Sometimes it gets to that point for the marriage to be saved.


If she had lost her emotional bond to her husband and did everything in her power (including couple's counseling) to revive her desire for him but was unsuccessful, why didn't she simply file for separation as a prelude to a divorce instead? Why stay married if she was miserable and as you said, vulnerable to an affair of her own? Filing for divorce is a much better and much less destructive wake up call than an affair which will not only end the marriage but create utmost misery for everyone involved.

Guts? Guts (love) is willing to let go of her husband for his future happiness no matter how much it hurt her to do it. A conditional hall pass (without falling in love) is simply a selfish way of trying to act like she cared about her husband when she really didn't because she is afraid and wants to keep him enslaved to her via marriage. I call that cowardice (selfishness) not guts (love).


----------



## Icey181

For everyone who seems to think that her "Hail Marry Pass" was an attempt to get her husband to recognize her emotional needs:

How does offering sex with another woman address her need for an emotional connection?

Especially considering if he _took it_ it would effectively end the marriage.

And if he _refused it_ she would have just created immense emotional and physical detachment in one fell swoop.

Where in that scenario does the logic, "By offering sex with other women and declaring my libido DOA for the next half decade, my husband will get that I need more emotional connections and less stress for sex and he will be super-supportive!" come from?

It does not make sense to me, at all.


----------



## morituri

always_alone said:


> That's certainly one reason to have an affair, but is by no means the only one.
> 
> My thinking is this: he has needs that are not being met. She suggests sleeping with another (with the caveat of no emotional attachment). He suggests affair (perhaps with emotional attachment).
> 
> Are we saying that his solution is the better, more understandable one, more reasonable one because it allows him emotional attachment to the person he is enjoying his hall pass with? That her big mistake was denying him, or attempting to control those emotional connections?


Not better, worse and more realistic. I'm even willing to bet that like many men, he does not want to go to a prostitute to just have "sex" (I certainly don't as much as I miss sex and I am still emotionally recovering from my breakup with my former GF) but wants to find a woman who desires a man to feel an emotional connection with her through sex.

When you have sex with a partner that wants you as much as you do her/him, there is a very strong emotional attachment that often is created. That is why couples who are in "the lifestyle" (swinging) often make it a rule not to have sex more than once with the same people. 

And if his wife resents him, while his lover adores him. Which do you think he'll be drawn to and possibly want to end up being with eventually?


----------



## morituri

Icey181 said:


> For everyone who seems to think that her "Hail Marry Pass" was an attempt to get her husband to recognize her emotional needs:
> 
> How does offering sex with another woman address her need for an emotional connection?
> 
> Especially considering if he _took it_ it would effectively end the marriage.
> 
> And if he _refused it_ she would have just created immense emotional and physical detachment in one fell swoop.
> 
> Where in that scenario does the logic, "By offering sex with other women and declaring my libido DOA for the next half decade, my husband will get that I need more emotional connections and less stress for sex and he will be super-supportive!" come from?
> 
> It does not make sense to me, at all.


 @Icey181 *STOP MAKING SENSE! DAMMIT!* :grin2:>


----------



## Satya

I read a handful of her other blog entries and she complains, a lot. She seems pretty unhappy about most of life's lumps and I'm pretty turned off by her choice of vocabulary. If it were just a place to vent, I'd understand, and think she's a really unhappy mother that can't tolerate her life and uses the blog as an outlet. Knowing she writes for an audience just makes me think it's marketing similar to that of a new HBO show..... How much can we push the envelope and get away with on TV? Etc...


----------



## Wazza

Way too much is being made of the hall pass. 

If you look at it, you have a whole lot of women saying they can understand exactly how a woman can be driven to that point. And you have a whole lot of guys pointing out various ways in which the hall pass could do long term damage.

These two concepts are not mutually exclusive. 

Why the original blogger did it, who knows? What matters is what we can take from this for our own relationships.


----------



## Cosmos

Wazza said:


> Men have both physical and emotional needs, and I believe women do too. We've spoken a bit about men's emotions. What does physical need feel like for a woman? Can you even begin to put it into words?


Most human beings, irrespective of gender, require both emotional and physical intimacy in a relationship. In fact, I don't believe many relationships can survive long term without a healthy dose of both. 

I could tell you what the desire for physical intimacy feels like for me, but I don't think that it's germane to this thread because I'm in a very healthy, loving relationship and it might sound a little immodest. Suffice it to say that I require emotional and physical intimacy to similar degrees:wink2:


----------



## Cosmos

morituri said:


> But for that to occur, resentment has to be conquered first by both spouses.


Absolutely! And this is where communication and re-establishing emotional intimacy comes in.


----------



## Cosmos

morituri said:


> When you have sex with a partner that wants you as much as you do her/him, there is a very strong emotional attachment that often is created.


This is true, but if there is a lack of emotional intimacy and communication, physical intimacy often loses its attraction and can become less and less desirable. 

When I'm physically intimate with my partner, I am sharing myself with him on a very deep, limitless and vulnerable level, and it's a celebration of the love that I have for him. However, I would not want to do that if I felt emotionally disconnected from him...

Sure there can be sex just for the sheer fun of it, but that's only because of the trust and connectedness that is present due to our level of emotional intimacy.


----------



## Wazza

Cosmos said:


> This is true, but if there is a lack of emotional intimacy and communication, physical intimacy often loses its attraction and can become less and less desirable.
> 
> When I'm physically intimate with my partner, I am sharing myself with him on a very deep, limitless and vulnerable level, and it's a celebration of the love that I have for him. However, I would not want to do that if I felt emotionally disconnected from him...
> 
> Sure there can be sex just for the sheer fun of it, but that's only because of the trust and connectedness that is present due to our level of emotional intimacy.


Actually, I wonder if that last paragraph is part of the answer. If you were not in the mood, and your husband was, how would you feel playing along for his sake? Would it create the sort of pressure and resentment that has been described in this thread?


----------



## Cosmos

> *Cosmos posted*: Sure there can be sex just for the sheer fun of it, but that's only because of the trust and connectedness that is present due to our level of emotional intimacy.





Wazza said:


> Actually, I wonder if that last paragraph is part of the answer. If you were not in the mood, and your husband was, how would you feel playing along for his sake? Would it create the sort of pressure and resentment that has been described in this thread?


I would certainly do everything in my power to share his enthusiasm  If, however, our emotional intimacy was completely out of kilter, I would certainly feel less enthusiastic to connect with him physically and would resent _ persistent_ pressure to do so.


----------



## techmom

Icey181 said:


> For everyone who seems to think that her "Hail Marry Pass" was an attempt to get her husband to recognize her emotional needs:
> 
> How does offering sex with another woman address her need for an emotional connection?
> 
> Especially considering if he _took it_ it would effectively end the marriage.
> 
> And if he _refused it_ she would have just created immense emotional and physical detachment in one fell swoop.
> 
> Where in that scenario does the logic, "By offering sex with other women and declaring my libido DOA for the next half decade, my husband will get that I need more emotional connections and less stress for sex and he will be super-supportive!" come from?
> 
> It does not make sense to me, at all.


By offering this to him she is stating the following:

"Since you insist on initiating sex with me even though I am no longer emotionally connected to you, you just want sex, a orifice to place your pen!s. You don't want to establish an emotional connection first. Therefore, I will offer you a way to get this physical need satisfied without getting emotionally involved, like you do with me."

When husbands push for sex when the emotional connection is not there, women conclude that all you want is just to get your rocks off. So, to take the pressure off of us, we sometimes say things like "get a hooker" or "get a ****" because you have already demonstrated that you don't need to be emotionally involved to be able to have sex. All you need is for her to spread 'em.


----------



## samyeagar

Wazza said:


> Way too much is being made of the hall pass.
> 
> *If you look at it, you have a whole lot of women saying they can understand exactly how a woman can be driven to that point.* And you have a whole lot of guys pointing out various ways in which the hall pass could do long term damage.
> 
> These two concepts are not mutually exclusive.
> 
> Why the original blogger did it, who knows? What matters is what we can take from this for our own relationships.


Which shows that a whole lot of women do not understand the tie between the emotional and physical many men feel.


----------



## morituri

techmom said:


> By offering this to him she is stating the following:
> 
> "Since you insist on initiating sex with me even though I am no longer emotionally connected to you, you just want sex, a orifice to place your pen!s. You don't want to establish an emotional connection first. Therefore, I will offer you a way to get this physical need satisfied without getting emotionally involved, like you do with me."


But she could have stated this right out instead of using the hall pass offer. What was wrong with being direct and stating exactly what you wrote? Does anyone truly believe that she would have been happy if her husband actually took her offer and watched him get all dressed up to go have sex with another woman? This just shows what poor a communicator she truly is.



> When husbands push for sex when the emotional connection is not there, women conclude that all you want is just to get your rocks off. So, to take the pressure off of us, we sometimes say things like "get a hooker" or "get a ****" because you have already demonstrated that you don't need to be emotionally involved to be able to have sex. All you need is for her to spread 'em.


Very valid point but it also misses the point that he IS emotionally connected to her otherwise he would have jumped on the fake opportunity (who truly believes she offered it in earnest?) to have sex with another woman for the sake of sex. That is why he stated to her "You don't love me anymore" when she made him the so call offer.

When a spouse, woman or man, wants the other spouse to stay in a sexless marriage, the sex starved spouse may come to conclude that her/his role is nothing more than that of a financial source or ATM. All he/she needs to do is open her/his wallet and the sexless spouse will be happy.

Cosmos is right communication is what is needed and not convoluted offers that instead of building understanding between them, only end up creating more dangerous assumptions that threaten the future of the marriage.


----------



## techmom

morituri said:


> But she could have stated this right out instead of using the hall pass offer. What was wrong with being direct and stating exactly what you wrote? Does anyone truly believe that she would have been happy if her husband actually took her offer and watched him get all dressed up to go have sex with another woman? This just shows what poor a communicator she truly is.


I don't think she is a poor communicator, she communicates well. I think he is a poor listener. She communicated this before, but he only took notice of how serious it was when she offered the hall pass. 



> Very valid point but it also misses the point that he IS emotionally connected to her otherwise he would have jumped on the fake opportunity (who truly believes she offered it in earnest?) to have sex with another woman for the sake of sex. That is why he stated to her "You don't love me anymore" when she made him the so call offer.
> 
> When a spouse, woman or man, wants the other spouse to stay in a sexless marriage, the sex starved spouse may come to conclude that her/his role is nothing more than that of a financial source or ATM. All he/she needs to do is open her/his wallet and the sexless spouse will be happy.
> 
> Cosmos is right communication is what is needed and not convoluted offers that instead of building understanding between them, only end up creating more dangerous assumptions that threaten the future of the marriage.


Again, I state that because he was willing to have sex with her when she felt disconnected from him emotionally, he demonstrated that he could have sex with someone who he was not bonded with. She was emotionally drained and resentful for some time, and she communicated this to him. How could he not see that? All he saw was lack of sex and her low desire, if not for those 2 things everything would be fine.

Her blog illustrates how women get frustrated after trying to communicate their needs to the husband. This is what causes walk away wives, husbands don't listen until the sex dries up. Then they go to try to spice up the intimacy, while the wife is seething in resentments. Men on TAM love to state that sex= love, I think that is bs.

When you pursue sex with someone who you have emotionally neglected and who resents you, how can that be love?


----------



## always_alone

samyeagar said:


> Which shows that a whole lot of women do not understand the tie between the emotional and physical many men feel.


Rather, it shows that a whole lot of women feel that tie to have been completely severed.

Earlier in this thread I spoke of utterly disconnected sex, where it was clear to me my SO didn't really care if I was into it or not, and I asked how this could possibly be an expression of love. I was told that he was defective, bottom of the barrel. But from this conversation I gather that this is actually pretty normal. As long as the sex is happening, there is no problem because he gets to express his love.

I mean, wtf?


----------



## morituri

techmom said:


> I don't think she is a poor communicator, she communicates well. I think he is a poor listener. She communicated this before, but he only took notice of how serious it was when she offered the hall pass.


I disagree. What you are suggesting is tantamount to reading minds. No man (or woman for that matter) can read minds. If this is the kind of "listening" you are referring to then I agree, he is a poor "listener".



> Again, I state that because he was willing to have sex with her when she felt disconnected from him emotionally, *he demonstrated that he could have sex with someone who he was not bonded with.* She was emotionally drained and resentful for some time, and she communicated this to him. How could he not see that? All he saw was lack of sex and her low desire, if not for those 2 things everything would be fine.


She faked her desire until she couldn't do it anymore.

Again all she had to do was say to him that when he wanted sex she felt used because that was the only time he approached her. That he only demonstrated affection to her when he wanted sex and because of this, her desire for him had taken a nosedive. How hard is that to get across?



> Her blog illustrates how women get frustrated after trying to communicate their needs to the husband. This is what causes walk away wives, husbands don't listen until the sex dries up. Then they go to try to spice up the intimacy, while the wife is seething in resentments. Men on TAM love to state that sex= love, I think that is bs.


Oh and when it is the women who are the ones who suffer in a sexless marriage, their husbands sexual rejection of them is not considered a lack of love by them? 

All her blog shows is that not all women are good communicators.



> When you pursue sex with someone who you have emotionally neglected and who resents you, how can that be love?


This is one of the pet peeves many of us men have with how many women communicate with us. The often told story of a man and a woman on a trip driving along a highway when the wife asks her husband "Do you want coffee?" and the husband replies "No thank you". After that the woman's mood turns quiet and sullen, until the husband notices and asks her "What's wrong?" and she curtly replies to him "Nothing!". The tension builds up inside her until she can no longer deal with her resentment and she finally says to him "If you cared about me, you could have offered me coffee". 

Because she was not a direct communicator she helped to create that resentment inside of her. Your blogger is the poster girl for this type of "communication".


----------



## soccermom2three

always_alone said:


> Rather, it shows that a whole lot of women feel that tie to have been completely severed.
> 
> Earlier in this thread I spoke of utterly disconnected sex, where it was clear to me my SO didn't really care if I was into it or not, and I asked how this could possibly be an expression of love. I was told that he was defective, bottom of the barrel. But from this conversation I gather that this is actually pretty normal. As long as the sex is happening, there is no problem because he gets to express his love.
> 
> I mean, wtf?


Yes! When I had a sit down with my husband and told him how unhappy I was, (I pretty much had to resort to scaring the $h!t out of him), the FIRST thing out of his mouth was, "But the sex is great!", lol.

Tech mom and AA your posts on this thread are excellent.


----------



## techmom

morituri said:


> I disagree. What you are suggesting is tantamount to reading minds. No man (or woman for that matter) can read minds. If this is the kind of "listening" you are referring to then I agree, he is a poor "listener".
> 
> 
> 
> Again all she had to do was say to him that when he wanted sex she felt used because that was the only time he approached her. That he only demonstrated affection to her when he wanted sex and because of this, her desire for him had taken a nosedive. How hard is that to get across?
> 
> 
> 
> Oh and when it is the women who are the ones who suffer in a sexless marriage, the husband rejection of them is not considered a lack of love? All her blog shows is that not all women are good communicators.
> 
> 
> 
> This is one of the pet peeves many of us men have with how many women communicate with us. The often told story of a man and a woman on a trip driving along a highway when the wife asks her husband "Do you want coffee?" and the husband replies "No thank you". After that the woman's mood turns quiet and sullen, until the husband notices and asks her "What's wrong?" and she curtly replies to him "Nothing!". The tension builds up inside her until she can no longer deal with her resentment and she finally says to him "If you cared about me, you could have offered me coffee".
> 
> Because she was not a direct communicator she helped to create that resentment inside of her. Your blogger is the poster girl for this type of "communication".


Most men listen to what they want to hear, they don't like complaints or "nagging". Any negative communication is placed in the nagging category. So they tune it out. Until the sex dries up. What about her blog suggests that she is a poor communicator? Her blog communicates well enough for there to be debates pages long.

Her husband is too busy traveling for his job to notice any emotional disconnect in his marriage. He didn't care to do anything except ask for sex, and to facilitate anything towards the goal of more sex. Anything he might have suggested as a solution was to get more sex, not to strengthen the emotional bond which she needed.

So again, you example of the wife in the car who wanted her husband to offer her coffee is a common straw man used. The straw man of the non communicating wife is a convenient excuse for men not to even try to listen. Yet, they are so quick to dismiss the wife as crazy when she does not behave like he wants her to behave. 

Pure nonsense.


----------



## morituri

techmom said:


> Most men listen to what they want to hear, they don't like complaints or "nagging". Any negative communication is placed in the nagging category. So they tune it out. Until the sex dries up. What about her blog suggests that she is a poor communicator? Her blog communicates well enough for there to be debates pages long.


Nagging is NOT communicating, it is attacking. How receptive are you going to be if your SO comes out and verbally attacks you?

Most of the married men I've known whose wives indulged in nagging, lost all sexual desire for them and ended up divorcing them.



> Her husband is too busy traveling for his job to notice any emotional disconnect in his marriage. He didn't care to do anything except ask for sex, and to facilitate anything towards the goal of more sex. Anything he might have suggested as a solution was to get more sex, not to strengthen the emotional bond which she needed.


And what does she do? She fakes desire until she can't do it anymore. She was faking an emotional connection, something that was not there. It is called being dishonest not just with her husband but with herself as well. Oh that is real communication isn't it?



> So again, you example of the wife in the car who wanted her husband to offer her coffee is a common straw man used. The straw man of the non communicating wife is a convenient excuse for men not to even try to listen. Yet, they are so quick to dismiss the wife as crazy when she does not behave like he wants her to behave.
> 
> Pure nonsense.


The real "straw man" is this blogger and that she represents all the suffering women out there. As you say, pure nonsense.


----------



## techmom

I have to ask this question of the men, is any criticism perceived as nagging? How would you want the wife to inform you of her emotional disconnects? Many times when women come to tam and state that they are LD they are told to fake it until you make it. This is what the blogger did, and it didn't work. So she is still blamed even though she tried? She was being dishonest? What should she have done?

The husband is responsible as well, he needs to know how to perceive a rift in the relationship, however many men were not raised to be well rounded emotionally. An emotionally stunted individual can't perceive a problem until they are hit in the head with the 2x4. Then they say, why didn't you tell me earlier, if she would have stated it earlier he would have ignored the message. Guaranteed.


----------



## EllisRedding

techmom said:


> I have to ask this question of the men, is any criticism perceived as nagging? How would you want the wife to inform you of her emotional disconnects? Many times when women come to tam and state that they are LD they are told to fake it until you make it. This is what the blogger did, and it didn't work. So she is still blamed even though she tried? She was being dishonest? What should she have done?
> 
> The husband is responsible as well, he needs to know how to perceive a rift in the relationship, however many men were not raised to be well rounded emotionally. An emotionally stunted individual can't perceive a problem until they are hit in the head with the 2x4. Then they say, why didn't you tell me earlier, if she would have stated it earlier he would have ignored the message. Guaranteed.


You keep talking as if men are horrible communicators and somehow women have this mastered??? If you want to argue that most men only hear what they want to hear, then I would argue most women rely on mind reading (i.e. if he really knew me he would know what I was thinking) instead of being direct about what they want. Both tactics could be considered very ineffective.


----------



## techmom

When a woman says to her husband "I don't want to have sex with you anymore because you don't listen to my concerns outside the bedroom" this is perceived by men as "I don't find you attractive anymore" or "I love you but I'm not in love with you". Which is completely different from what she said. She wants to be listened to, but he hears the "I don't want sex part" and misses the listening part. Anything getting in the way of more sex is a useless excuse as far as the husband is concerned. This is where the disconnect starts.

If women can't bring up issues in the relationship without it being dismissed as trivial nagging, then how are we to communicate? The blogger's husband didn't have many opportunities to listen to her because they had very little time spent together. Time together as a couple, not just mom and dad, could have given her more opportunities to express her feelings and be listened to. But his priority was more sex. The constant traveling almost killed this marriage, not the lack of sex. The marriage was almost dead by the time she offered him the hall pass, she was almost done with the relationship.


----------



## morituri

techmom said:


> I have to ask this question of the men, is any criticism perceived as nagging? How would you want the wife to inform you of her emotional disconnects? Many times when women come to tam and state that they are LD they are told to fake it until you make it. This is what the blogger did, and it didn't work. So she is still blamed even though she tried? She was being dishonest? What should she have done?


Be honest and direct. Only then can the issue be properly addressed and hopefully resolved to both spouses satisfaction.

Just like it is wrong for husbands to use "covert contracts" with their wives, so it is wrong when wives use them with their husbands.



> The husband is responsible as well, he needs to know how to perceive a rift in the relationship, however many men were not raised to be well rounded emotionally. An emotionally stunted individual can't perceive a problem until they are hit in the head with the 2x4. Then they say, why didn't you tell me earlier, if she would have stated it earlier he would have ignored the message. Guaranteed.


So men in order to be "well rounded emotionally" and not "emotionally stunted individuals" they have to learn how to read female minds? They have to learn when their wives are faking it and being dishonest with them? Is this fair on men or women when the roles are reversed? 

The husband (and the wife) are BOTH responsible for being honest with each other and ask frequently if he/she is well as a sign of love and caring for one another.

And for the record, I have no sympathy for any husband whose wife has told him directly and flat out from the get go (no faking it, nor waiting for years to see if he "gets it") that she is not happy with him because he has stopped being the man she fell in love with. The man who won her heart through words and non sexual displays of attention and affection that she was the most important person in his life. If he chooses to ignore it, and his wife grows emotionally cold and non-sexual towards him, then he has no one to blame but himself.


----------



## techmom

EllisRedding said:


> You keep talking as if men are horrible communicators and somehow women have this mastered??? If you want to argue that most men only hear what they want to hear, then I would argue most women rely on mind reading (i.e. if he really knew me he would know what I was thinking) instead of being direct about what they want. Both tactics could be considered very ineffective.


Evidently what is being missed by most men on this thread is that she was communicating her concerns to him, but between business trips is very difficult. He was too wrapped up in his work to notice what was going on with her. Where did any woman on this thread suggest he become a mind reader? Why do you insist on using that strawman?

This woman is a very effective blogger, I'm sure she is a good communicator as well.


----------



## EllisRedding

techmom said:


> When a woman says to her husband "I don't want to have sex with you anymore because you don't listen to my concerns outside the bedroom" this is perceived by men as "I don't find you attractive anymore" or "I love you but I'm not in love with you". Which is completely different from what she said. She wants to be listened to, but he hears the "I don't want sex part" and misses the listening part. Anything getting in the way of more sex is a useless excuse as far as the husband is concerned. This is where the disconnect starts.
> 
> If women can't bring up issues in the relationship without it being dismissed as trivial nagging, then how are we to communicate? The blogger's husband didn't have many opportunities to listen to her because they had very little time spent together. Time together as a couple, not just mom and dad, could have given her more opportunities to express her feelings and be listened to. But his priority was more sex. The constant traveling almost killed this marriage, not the lack of sex. The marriage was almost dead by the time she offered him the hall pass, she was almost done with the relationship.


Where in the blog post the author state she talked to her husband about this, about how she didn't want to have sex because she didn't feel connected, etc...? The only time it came up was when she offered the free pass. Does not not sound like effective communicating to me. Faking it is also not effective communication, was he supposed to see through this??


----------



## soccermom2three

techmom said:


> Where did any woman on this thread suggest he become a mind reader? Why do you insist on using that strawman?


Yea, I think your point about men being poor listeners (readers?) is being demonstrated very well on this thread.


----------



## EllisRedding

techmom said:


> Evidently what is being missed by most men on this thread is that she was communicating her concerns to him, but between business trips is very difficult. He was too wrapped up in his work to notice what was going on with her. *Where did any woman on this thread suggest he become a mind reader? Why do you insist on using that strawman?*
> 
> This woman is a very effective blogger, I'm sure she is a good communicator as well.


You stated most men don't respond well to communication. You made quite a generalization there, but to make a similar generalization is considered strawman lol ...


----------



## EllisRedding

soccermom2three said:


> Yea, I think your point about men being poor listeners (readers?) is being demonstrated very well on this thread.


Seems to apply to some of you as well. Nowhere did I state he was supposed to be a mind reader. My comment about mind readers was in response to Techs generalization that most men are poor communicators and only hear what they want to hear ...


----------



## techmom

Next time a LD woman comes to the board and asks how to handle her lack of desire, I don't want anyone to suggest to her that she fake it, or just put out. Because that would be misleading the man, and he cannot read her mind. Got it.

Also, stop propping up his ego, say what is on your mind such as:

Your feet stink, take a shower please?
Change your underwear!
Lose weight!
Take care of your teeth!

Let's not sugarcoat it ladies because then the men will be forced to read our minds. If you don't want to have sex, don't do it. Then state the reasons why as I listed above. Got it?


----------



## techmom

The strawman of the non communicating wife who expects her man to read her mind vs. the strawman of the nagging wife...

Who will win the most mentions in this thread?


----------



## EllisRedding

techmom said:


> Next time a LD woman comes to the board and asks how to handle her lack of desire, I don't want anyone to suggest to her that she fake it, or just put out. Because that would be misleading the man, and he cannot read her mind. Got it.
> 
> Also, stop propping up his ego, say what is on your mind such as:
> 
> Your feet stink, take a shower please?
> Change your underwear!
> Lose weight!
> Take care of your teeth!
> 
> Let's not sugarcoat it ladies because then the men will be forced to read our minds. If you don't want to have sex, don't do it. Then state the reasons why as I listed above. Got it?


Wow, defensive much when you get questioned ...

When it comes to relationship (sex, etc...), If you don't want to have sex then yes you should state why instead of dragging out what could be a more problematic situation.

The fact that you try to lump in "change your underwear" in this is laughable.


----------



## techmom

EllisRedding said:


> Wow, defensive much when you get questioned ...
> 
> When it comes to relationship (sex, etc...), If you don't want to have sex then yes you should state why instead of dragging out what could be a more problematic situation.
> 
> The fact that you try to lump in "change your underwear" in this is laughable.


Seems like you adverse to strong communication from women...


----------



## EllisRedding

techmom said:


> EllisRedding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, defensive much when you get questioned ...
> 
> When it comes to relationship (sex, etc...), If you don't want to have sex then yes you should state why instead of dragging out what could be a more problematic situation.
> 
> The fact that you try to lump in "change your underwear" in this is laughable.
> 
> 
> 
> Seems like you adverse to strong communication from women...
Click to expand...

If that is what you think then it sounds like you only hear what you want to hear


----------



## Wazza

Isn't communication all about effectively passing ideas, thoughts, and information from one person to another?

Guys, if the ladies here are pointing out that we don't hear certain things, and they are all saying it, doesn't that suggest we have some work to do to be able to hear better? Ladies, if the guys as a whole are comparing your style of communication to mind reading, might it not be wise to be a little clearer? And both sides cut each other a little slack?


----------



## techmom

EllisRedding said:


> If that is what you think then it sounds like you only hear what you want to hear


Yes, ha ha, because you are just nagging, lol>


----------



## techmom

Wazza said:


> Isn't communication all about effectively passing ideas, thoughts, and information from one person to another?
> 
> Guys, if the ladies here are pointing out that we don't hear certain things, and they are all saying it, doesn't that suggest we have some work to do to be able to hear better? Ladies, if the guys as a whole are comparing your style of communication to mind reading, might it not be wise to be a little clearer? And both sides cut each other a little slack?


Well, from what I observed on these boards and elsewhere, anything short of a 2x 4 upside the head of some men will be interpreted as ineffective communication. Then, we don't want to be perceived as nagging because that will get tuned out. However, we need to care for their egos, so we can't come off as hostile b!tches.

Women have to navigate this minefield when we discuss our issues in the relationship. Bottom line is , if he doesn't perceive it as important, then it ain't important.

Just learned from this thread that if you still have sex when you don't want to that is miscommunicating as well, because it misleads men to think that all is well in the marriage. But then you can't offer a hall pass because that is the worst thing you can do, worse than withholding.

Ok guys...


----------



## ocotillo

AA,



always_alone said:


> Are we saying....that her big mistake was denying him, or attempting to control those emotional connections?


I would say that the author's fundamental mistake is the assumption that the _soreg_ in her mind between love and sex is as natural and normal for other people as it is for her. It seems pretty clear that the whole flawed premise of the, "Hall Pass" (i.e. Sex without emotional attachment) springs directly from that viewpoint. 

Plenty of people *do* equate sex with love and view the absence of the former as an absence of the latter. Ms. Hosseini dismisses the whole idea as, "Psychobabble" that doesn't capture the reality of real life, so not only is there a lack of understanding for a viewpoint she doesn't share herself, there is open derision of it. 

I'm not saying this to excuse an affair. I'm trying to point out (again) that this is nor primarily about sex and that a person in Mr. Hosseini's shoes who commits that sin is looking first and foremost for the emotional connection that has gone missing.


----------



## morituri

techmom said:


> The strawman of the non communicating wife who expects her man to read her mind vs. the strawman of the nagging wife...
> 
> Who will win the most mentions in this thread?


The strawman that all wives are excellent communicators but that their husbands don't listen.


----------



## always_alone

techmom said:


> Seems like you adverse to strong communication from women...


Right! You got it! Your job is to be perfectly clear and direct, not beat around the bush. Say what you mean and mean what you say, as anything else is failing to communicate, and you can't expect people to read your mind.

But whatever you do, don't be too clear and direct because that is nothing more than insulting attacks. Nagging that deserves to be tuned out.

Tread carefully, or you can never be understood.


----------



## always_alone

soccermom2three said:


> Yea, I think your point about men being poor listeners (readers?) is being demonstrated very well on this thread.


Was just thinking the exact same thing.


----------



## EllisRedding

techmom said:


> Just learned from this thread that if you still have sex when you don't want to that is miscommunicating as well, because it misleads men to think that all is well in the marriage. But then you can't offer a hall pass because that is the worst thing you can do, worse than withholding.
> 
> Ok guys...


So withhold and explain what the issue is. Amazing how you can draw parallels to encouraging infidelity ...

Ok gals ....


----------



## techmom

morituri said:


> The strawman that all wives are excellent communicators but that their husbands don't listen.


Or oblivious husband strawman?


----------



## morituri

techmom said:


> Or oblivious husband strawman?


Or "My husband and I have a great sex life. In fact we just had sex in 1995" strawman >


----------



## techmom

EllisRedding said:


> So withhold and explain what the issue is. Amazing how you can draw parallels to encouraging infidelity ...
> 
> Ok gals ....


If you couldn't listen to her before she got fed up enough to withhold then what will make her think her issues would be listened to while withholding? Maybe the reason is that she's withholding? By the time some women withhold sex it is too late and she already disconnected. 

It would be wise to listen before it gets to that point.


----------



## always_alone

ocotillo said:


> AA,
> 
> I would say that the author's fundamental mistake is the assumption that the _soreg_ in her mind between love and sex is as natural and normal for other people as it is for her. It seems pretty clear that the whole flawed premise of the, "Hall Pass" (i.e. Sex without emotional attachment) springs directly from that viewpoint.
> 
> Plenty of people *do* equate sex with love and view the absence of the former as an absence of the latter. Ms. Hosseini dismisses the whole idea as, "Psychobabble" that doesn't capture the reality of real life, so not only is there a lack of understanding for a viewpoint she doesn't share herself, there is open derision of it.
> 
> I'm not saying this to excuse an affair. I'm trying to point out (again) that this is nor primarily about sex and that a person in Mr. Hosseini's shoes who commits that sin is looking first and foremost for the emotional connection that has gone missing.


But there is a distinction between sex and love. There are many, many types of love that have nothing to do with sex: that between a parent and child, between friends, between siblings. Love simply does not equal sex.

And so what we're talking about is romantic love only. Now even here, many, many people have a distinction between sex and love. Lots of people will pursue sex with zero emotional bond, either before of after. Sex does not equal love.

I get that physical intimacy is very important in a relationship, and most certainly does create bonds. But again people will have vastly different expectations as to what that means. How often must sex occur to continue to feel love? How long can the gap between before the bonds start breaking? There is no one answer to those questions.

Now maybe Mr. Hosseini and other posters here are looking for a missing emotional connection. But how are you going to establish that by having sex with someone who is becoming increasingly distant from you through that very same sex? It would be a very odd kind of bond, IMHO.


----------



## Fozzy

*Sunday! Sunday! Sunday!*

Men are pigs! Women are shrews! Who will win??? Nobody!!! 

Tickets on sale now--kids just five bucks!!!


----------



## morituri

*Welcome back my friends to the show that never ends.* :grin2:


----------



## Wazza

always_alone said:


> But there is a distinction between sex and love. There are many, many types of love that have nothing to do with sex: that between a parent and child, between friends, between siblings. Love simply does not equal sex.
> 
> And so what we're talking about is romantic love only. Now even here, many, many people have a distinction between sex and love. Lots of people will pursue sex with zero emotional bond, either before of after. Sex does not equal love.
> 
> I get that physical intimacy is very important in a relationship, and most certainly does create bonds. But again people will have vastly different expectations as to what that means. How often must sex occur to continue to feel love? How long can the gap between before the bonds start breaking? There is no one answer to those questions.
> 
> Now maybe Mr. Hosseini and other posters here are looking for a missing emotional connection. But how are you going to establish that by having sex with someone who is becoming increasingly distant from you through that very same sex? It would be a very odd kind of bond, IMHO.


I think there is something to what you say. The trouble is, most of us only begin to realise all this stuff when we are already in trouble. The question is how to climb out.

I can see how sex in that circumstance can increase distance, and I can see how lack of it can increase distance. The question is, do we want to stand our ground or look for compromise?

Easy to be right, but alone.


----------



## morituri

Listen with your eyes.


----------



## techmom

Fozzy said:


> *Sunday! Sunday! Sunday!*
> 
> Men are pigs! Women are shrews! Who will win??? Nobody!!!
> 
> Tickets on sale now--kids just five bucks!!!


I like your humor...:grin2:


----------



## ocotillo

AA,



always_alone said:


> But there is a distinction between sex and love. There are many, many types of love that have nothing to do with sex: that between a parent and child, between friends, between siblings...


Absolutely. Other languages, (Like Greek for example) have several different words for love with each one denoting a different type. 

We don't know a lot about Mr. Hosseini, but one of the few things we do know about him is that he very clearly viewed the, "Hall Pass" suggestion as a statement that his wife no longer loves him. What type of love do you think he was talking about?

I'd say that Ms. Hosseini has saved us the trouble of quibbling over what type of love was at stake by using the term, "Romance" to describe what was lacking.




always_alone said:


> And so what we're talking about is romantic love only. Now even here, many, many people have a distinction between sex and love. Lots of people will pursue sex with zero emotional bond, either before of after. Sex does not equal love.


Sex does not equal love for everyone and that clearly seems to be the case with Ms. Hosseini and (perhaps) others on this thread. I can respect that. People are all different. 




always_alone said:


> I get that physical intimacy is very important in a relationship, and most certainly does create bonds. But again people will have vastly different expectations as to what that means. How often must sex occur to continue to feel love? How long can the gap between before the bonds start breaking?


Well obviously that's going to vary from person to person.  Ms. Hosseini used the term, "Sexual Sahara" and stated that a hiatus of as long five years would still be acceptable.

I'm skeptical. I tend to believe that any love that still existed at that point would be purely along familial lines. It's not that we don't love sisters. It's hardly the same type of love though. 



always_alone said:


> But how are you going to establish that by having sex with someone who is becoming increasingly distant from you through that very same sex? It would be a very odd kind of bond, IMHO.


I think we agree on this. It can be a very, very intractable problem without an obvious solution.


----------



## always_alone

Wazza said:


> I think there is something to what you say. The trouble is, most of us only begin to realise all this stuff when we are already in trouble. The question is how to climb out.
> 
> I can see how sex in that circumstance can increase distance, and I can see how lack of it can increase distance. The question is, do we want to stand our ground or look for compromise?
> 
> Easy to be right, but alone.


No one wants to stand their ground in a toxic situation. But they do need to be heard, and they do need a solution that meets their needs.

What astounded me about the blogger's story was just how everyone could so easily see his side, everyone could sympathize with his hardship, but that hers counted for nothing. It was invalid. 

But no one wants to be invalidated, or told that our feelings, thoughts, needs are just wrong, unimportant, broken. Moving forward must require some level of acknowledgment and acceptance of the other persons authentic self. If that can't be achieved, then there probably isn't a whole lot of hope for the relationship. This is why jld's points at the beginning of this thread were so important. You can lash out, you can accuse, you can use guilt, you can badger, you can pressure. But none of that will help. You can't make someone be who you want them to be, you can only encourage them to be who they actually want to be.


----------



## always_alone

ocotillo said:


> Sex does not equal love for everyone and that clearly seems to be the case with Ms. Hosseini and (perhaps) others on this thread. I can respect that. People are all different.


What I'm trying to say is that I think there is a whole lot of equivocation in this whole sex=love thing. 

You say that she absolutely doesn't think sex equals love and this makes her different from her husband, but I don't think that's necessarily true. 

Yes, she's asking for a sexual hiatus. But it's precisely because the type of (pressured) sex she was having was making her feel worse, more disconnected. Invalidated. That doesn't mean that for her sex and love aren't intertwined. I'm betting that anyone who is having sex that they don't actually want on a regular basis is going to get turned off by it --and this includes the Mr. as much as the Mrs. 

Indeed, I'd venture that the more intertwined sex and love are to someone, the *more* likely it is that they will be turned off sex where it's based in guilt, pressure, or other unhappy and unhealthy places.

And while I understand that 5 years is a long time, too long for probably anyone but an asexual or extremely LD, I think her real point was not that there would be no consequences to a drought of that length -- but that there are indeed other things to sustain the relationship besides sex. 

Which one hopes that there are. Certainly I wouldn't want to be in a relationship where sex was the only thing holding it together. What happens if someone gets sick? What happens when they get older and lose their drive? Is that the end of their love?

[/QUOTE]


----------



## ocotillo

always_alone said:


> But no one wants to be invalidated, or told that our feelings, thoughts, needs are just wrong, unimportant, broken. Moving forward must require some level of acknowledgment and acceptance of the other persons authentic self.


I hope you can see that this is the very thing that stuck in the craw of more than a few gentlemen on this thread? 

Ms. Hosseini does a good job of explaining the various pressures on someone who has lost their libido and how that actually makes the problem worse. You can't help but feel empathy for her.

At the same time though, she's openly dismissive of viewpoints other than her own, insisting that everything will be fine. The inherent hypocrisy in refusing to extend the very thing she seems to crave is reflected in the title, the theme, the content and the execution of the article...


----------



## morituri

ocotillo said:


> I hope you can see that this is the very thing that stuck in the craw of more than a few gentlemen on this thread?
> 
> Ms. Hosseini does a good job of explaining the various pressures on someone who has lost their libido and how that actually makes the problem worse. You can't help but feel empathy for her.
> 
> At the same time though, she's openly dismissive of viewpoints other than her own, insisting that everything will be fine. The inherent hypocrisy in refusing to extend the very thing she seems to crave is reflected in the title, the theme, the content and the execution of the article...


Indeed but you might as well be speaking in tongues because the women here are either as dismissive or incapable of acknowledging this very important point. Like the blogger. But if the roles were reversed then we'd see a different type of comment coming from them and not all as supportive of the husband.


----------



## always_alone

ocotillo said:


> I hope you can see that this is the very thing that stuck in the craw of more than a few gentlemen on this thread?
> 
> Ms. Hosseini does a good job of explaining the various pressures on someone who has lost their libido and how that actually makes the problem worse. You can't help but feel empathy for her.
> 
> At the same time though, she's openly dismissive of viewpoints other than her own, insisting that everything will be fine. The inherent hypocrisy in refusing to extend the very thing she seems to crave is reflected in the title, the theme, the content and the execution of the article...


But you said yourself that it was pretty clear where the tide of opinion lay. And with the exception of jld, there was absolutely zero sympathy for her viewpoint when I showed up. Even now, I don't see all that much sympathy for her POV.

I hear what you're saying. Her article is decidedly one-sided. No argument. But everything out there, everything she is responding to, favours his view, is sympathetic to his cause. This is one reason why she feels so pressured. Everyone, everything says put out or get out. You have nothing to offer if you don't get into that sexual groove and do it now, even if you're not feeling it. Even she agrees that it will come back, that they will reconnect, it is just a matter of time.

But even so, everyone wants to take issue with the amount of time she suggests. Or with the fact that she isn't sufficiently guilt-ridden or apologetic about having feelings that she's clearly not allowed or entitled to have.

So, yes, I do get why her views weren't very well received by some. But I also find the hostility towards her quite telling, and in many ways validates exactly what she is saying.


----------



## always_alone

morituri said:


> Indeed but you might as well be speaking in tongues because the women here are either as dismissive or incapable of acknowledging this very important point. Like the blogger. But if the roles were reversed then we'd see a different type of comment coming from them and not all as supportive of the husband.


I have said time and time again on his thread that the roles are reversed in my relationship and the same principles hold.

You make fun that the thread is going around in circles, but here you're the one who is bent on ending up in exactly the same place.


----------



## morituri

always_alone said:


> I have said time and time again on his thread that the roles are reversed in my relationship and the same principles hold.
> 
> You make fun that the thread is going around in circles, but here you're the one who is bent on ending up in exactly the same place.


It's funny because the same indictment levied against the blogger's husband and men in general, can be levied against the women here. While techmom and the other women here argue, stereotype and agree that the blogger's husband is to blame for her reaction because he didn't listen to her, the same can be said about women here who have failed to listen not just to yours truly but to the other men here as well. They want validation of the female POV but are not willing to reciprocate when it comes to the male POV.


----------



## Buddy400

always_alone said:


> Right! You got it! Your job is to be perfectly clear and direct, not beat around the bush. Say what you mean and mean what you say, as anything else is failing to communicate, and you can't expect people to read your mind.
> *
> But whatever you do, don't be too clear and direct because that is nothing more than insulting attacks. Nagging that deserves to be tuned out.*
> 
> Tread carefully, or you can never be understood.


I've read almost this entire thread. Where has a male poster mentioned nagging?


----------



## Buddy400

techmom said:


> If you couldn't listen to her before she got fed up enough to withhold then what will make her think her issues would be listened to while withholding? Maybe the reason is that she's withholding?


Do whatever it takes to effectively deliver the message you want heard. Confirm that the message has been heard and understood.


----------



## morituri

Buddy400 said:


> I've read almost this entire thread. Where has a male poster mentioned nagging?


 @Buddy400 It was techmom who brought it up first and I responded *here*.

What I also find interesting about the women here is their silence in regards to the women who commented on the bloggers post, that echoed the following:



TB said:


> *This was me*. Sex was another thing on my never ending to do list. I was never in the mood. Four children in four years exhausted, stretch marks have stretch marks body issues, please just let me sleep, but my hubby couldn't see hiring a housekeeper or getting take out cause there was no room in the budget. So I refused and refused and tried to explain. *While I didn't give him a free pass he took one anyway. You think you be ok with him getting sex somewhere else but you won't. You think he will stop bothering you for sex but he won't. You think he won't fall in love because it's just about the sex but he will. It is hard heartbreaking*. Reading this I am so sad for you. You think you've got it all worked out in your mind how your marriage is going to be there when it is finally convenient for you but it won't. Listen to an older woman who have lived what you are going through. Get help, hire someone to clean or cook, stop worrying ha out body image cause your husband doesn't care nearly as much as you do. Stop worrying about having sex like the movies show cause that is so not realistic. And stop stressing over that stupid to do list. It will never be done, even when the kids are older. Spend time with just your husband, go on those dates you seem to hate, tell him to romance you, beg someone to take the kids and have a second home moon (sex and all), and apologize to your husband for giving him a free pass. You really don't want that. Trust me, I have been in your shoes.


or



Rebecca said:


> This is great if you want to end up lonely and divorced. If you don't take care of your husband, he'll eventually stop turning to you for companionship. Sex is the connection for them (men). Sex is NOT the end all be all of a relationship, but it is an important part. Important enough that if you neglect it, it can bring down the rest of the relationship. Your priorities are all kinds of f'ed up. Also, great way to toss out the opinion of every scientist and expert in the field and label it all "psycho babble" because you don't understand what it means to be a mutually fulfilling relationship.
> 
> *I would bet my life savings that, if you don't change your course NOW, you are headed to a divorce. He doesn't want "sex". If he wanted "sex" he could damn sure get "sex" whenever he felt like it. He wants you. He wants a relationship with you. He wants intimacy with YOU, despite how you've been treating him for the last 2 years.*
> 
> Unsolicited advice: Count your blessings, rearrange your life, and get back in the saddle before you lose this saint of a man.


and



Susan said:


> You sound like someone who is so closed off and screwed up that you are trying any imaginable excuse to NOT have sex with your husband. I had 3 babies in 3 years, I was exhausted and worn out, but I value my husband and my marriage too much to just ruin everything by turning in to precisely the kind of woman you are. This country has become a place for women where "if mommas not happy, no one is happy" and it's common place for men to be portrayed as idiots with no feelings, when in reality the opposite is typically true. So, good job, you managed to become a mother, just like billions of other female people have! Good work! Now you want to raise the people you created and not screw them up, right? A big part of having happy, healthy kids is seeing their parents be happy together, be affectionate with each other, and no matter how you try to act like your relationship is great and sex doesn't matter, they will see the truth. Men need sex to connect, they need sex to feel loved, they DO NOT WORK LIKE WE DO, and we shouldn't expect them to. So yeah, you may not get divorced, but your actions will hurt your marriage, your husband will start to resent you and the life that he feels trapped in, and you will wish with all of your soul that you could go back in time and not be the woman you are portraying yourself as here. *What woman in their right mind is so focused on every other detail of her life that she would rather her husband cheat on her than admit that something is wrong, and truthfully, you should be ashamed of yourself for writing this garbage and trying to sell it as even remotely helpful. Change your priorities, make time for your husband, if your children and your marriage are important to you AT ALL.*


The women there get it, the women here on TAM don't.


----------



## Wazza

always_alone said:


> And while I understand that 5 years is a long time, too long for probably anyone but an asexual or extremely LD, I think her real point was not that there would be no consequences to a drought of that length -- but that there are indeed other things to sustain the relationship besides sex.
> 
> Which one hopes that there are. Certainly I wouldn't want to be in a relationship where sex was the only thing holding it together. What happens if someone gets sick? What happens when they get older and lose their drive? Is that the end of their love?


I think I get, to some extent at least, the point you ladies are making. And I love my wife, and there is a lot more to it than sex. Sex isn't even the most important bit. 

But I think you get what is coming next. If my wife announced a five year moratorium on sex, I don't know if the marriage could survive. I simply don't know if I could stay celibate for five years. I am certain I would be sorely tempted to be unfaithful, and I would have to wonder whether it were kinder to accept defeat and leave.

If my perception was that my wife's reasons were not understandable, I think I would be less likely to try than say if she had a protracted illness. 

I have no wish to threaten anyone, but facts are facts. 

I think this next paragraph applies equally to both sexes. By all means refuse sex if you are pushed beyond your breaking point. By all means communicate in your way and demand your partner make the effort to meet you where you are. That is your right. Just be aware that asserting your breaking point might be pushing your partner to theirs. You might have considered wallking, and then decided against it, but in the process you may have taken things past the point of no return for your partner.


----------



## Wazza

Buddy400 said:


> Do whatever it takes to effectively deliver the message you want heard. Confirm that the message has been heard and understood.


Is this a male way of communicating?


----------



## Cosmos

Wazza said:


> I think I get, to some extent at least, the point you ladies are making. And I love my wife, and there is a lot more to it than sex. Sex isn't even the most important bit.
> 
> But I think you get what is coming next. *If my wife announced a five year moratorium on sex, I don't know if the marriage could survive. I simply don't know if I could stay celibate for five years. * I am certain I would be sorely tempted to be unfaithful, and I would have to wonder whether it were kinder to accept defeat and leave.
> 
> If my perception was that my wife's reasons were not understandable, I think I would be less likely to try than say if she had a protracted illness.
> 
> I have no wish to threaten anyone, but facts are facts.
> 
> *I think this next paragraph applies equally to both sexes. By all means refuse sex if you are pushed beyond your breaking point. By all means communicate in your way and demand your partner make the effort to meet you where you are. That is your right. Just be aware that asserting your breaking point might be pushing your partner to theirs. You might have considered wallking, and then decided against it, but in the process you may have taken things past the point of no return for your partner*.


Very well said, Wazza. This is my stance on what we know of the situation, too.

It would appear that neither MM _nor her H _were communicating effectively and, IMO, this is what led to the chaotic situation they found themselves in.


----------



## samyeagar

techmom said:


> Well, from what I observed on these boards and elsewhere, anything short of a 2x 4 upside the head of some men will be interpreted as ineffective communication. Then, we don't want to be perceived as nagging because that will get tuned out. However, we need to care for their egos, so we can't come off as hostile b!tches.
> 
> Women have to navigate this minefield when we discuss our issues in the relationship. Bottom line is , if he doesn't perceive it as important, then it ain't important.
> 
> *Just learned from this thread that if you still have sex when you don't want to that is miscommunicating as well, because it misleads men to think that all is well in the marriage. But then you can't offer a hall pass because that is the worst thing you can do, worse than withholding.*
> 
> Ok guys...


For me, I have never had emotionally disconnected sex. Never had a one night stand, never had a casual fling, though I have had plenty of opportunities. I have turned down my wife when I have felt the disconnect from arguing. I stopped having sex with my ex wife largely because of her NPD abuse and the complete emotional break down of that marriage.

I can't even really say it's a conscious choice to not have sex without the emotion. The drive for it simply is not there, so if I was offered a hall pass, that would be tantamount to being told that my entire sexuality is not understood, not accepted, it would feel as if I was being wholesale rejected, and a lifetime of completely consistent behavior being disregarded.


----------



## EllisRedding

techmom said:


> If you couldn't listen to her before she got fed up enough to withhold then what will make her think her issues would be listened to while withholding? Maybe the reason is that she's withholding? By the time some women withhold sex it is too late and she already disconnected.
> 
> It would be wise to listen before it gets to that point.


Once again, the assumption he wasn't listening beforehand. He may have very well not been, I honestly don't know, but going purely on the blog post there is no indication that she said anything to him otherwise. 



techmom said:


> Men on TAM love to state that sex= love, I think that is bs.


I don't think I have seen this on TAM. In this thread no guy here has equated sex with love. All that has been stated is that when you have a SO, sex for guys (some, many, idk?) is a way to help build/maintain the emotional connection.


----------



## EllisRedding

morituri said:


> The women there get it, the women here on TAM don't.


In all fairness, there have been women in this thread who have been open minded and listened to both sides. Unfortunately, for others if you don't agree with their POV, it means that you aren't listening ...


----------



## always_alone

Personal said:


> I think it is bs as well. Sex isn't love it is just sex nothing more nothing less. That said, sex is normally a significant and essential component of romantic love.


I was thinking more about this sex=love thing, and it strikes me that it both is and it isn't. Good healthy sex can bring you closer together, but bad or unhealthy sex can drive you apart. Not only that, we are all responsible for our own drives. 

Say I want to "prove my love" to my SO 2x per day, but he finds that too much. Does this mean I love him more? Surely not!

My desire for "proving my love" is wholly my own, it is about me, not him. And if I want him to "prove his love" back at me, I pretty much have to accept that his drive is also his own, at his speed, in his time. Of course, we can influence each other on this, but ultimately, the reason I think sex is not love is because the drive for sex is what the individual wants for him/herself and love is what you want for the other.

One reason this problem is so intractable is that one party is insisting that the other's love is insufficient because they aren't proving it enough. But in so doing, they are making get other person responsible for their drive. 

Does that make sense?


----------



## always_alone

Wazza said:


> I think I get, to some extent at least, the point you ladies are making. And I love my wife, and there is a lot more to it than sex. Sex isn't even the most important bit.


Well, and I think that ultimately this was the blogger's point. Everyone will tell you how defective you are, how terrible you are for failing to meet sexual demands, and how it doesn't matter what you feel about. But really, sex isn't the most important bit in a long term loving relationship.



Wazza said:


> But I think you get what is coming next. If my wife announced a five year moratorium on sex, I don't know if the marriage could survive. I simply don't know if I could stay celibate for five years. I am certain I would be sorely tempted to be unfaithful, and I would have to wonder whether it were kinder to accept defeat and leave.


And I get this. I too would probably leave if my SO decided he no longer wanted sex with me at all. I get that sex and physical intimacy is hugely important. And that relationships have ended over less.

Whatever. People do what they have to do. But own it. No fair foisting it off on someone else.


----------



## Wazza

always_alone said:


> And I get this. I too would probably leave if my SO decided he no longer wanted sex with me at all. I get that sex and physical intimacy is hugely important. And that relationships have ended over less.
> 
> Whatever. People do what they have to do. But own it. No fair foisting it off on someone else.


If my spouse decides to cut off sex and I leave over it, I think there is a degree of responsibility on both sides.


----------



## Wazza

always_alone said:


> I was thinking more about this sex=love thing, and it strikes me that it both is and it isn't. Good healthy sex can bring you closer together, but bad or unhealthy sex can drive you apart. Not only that, we are all responsible for our own drives.
> 
> Say I want to "prove my love" to my SO 2x per day, but he finds that too much. Does this mean I love him more? Surely not!
> 
> My desire for "proving my love" is wholly my own, it is about me, not him. And if I want him to "prove his love" back at me, I pretty much have to accept that his drive is also his own, at his speed, in his time. Of course, we can influence each other on this, but ultimately, the reason I think sex is not love is because the drive for sex is what the individual wants for him/herself and love is what you want for the other.
> 
> One reason this problem is so intractable is that one party is insisting that the other's love is insufficient because they aren't proving it enough. But in so doing, they are making get other person responsible for their drive.
> 
> Does that make sense?


In my head at least it has nothing to do with "proving". And sex is not love. It can be one way of expressing love.

It's a very complete experience at its best...the lead up, the act, and the afterglow. Ane it's not always about the big O either. It's things like the look on your partner's face. Whispered words. The safety to relax and be vulnerable together.

Sharing, not proving.


----------



## morituri

I've seen men being criticized severely for not providing the same amount of attention and affection to their wives under similar circumstances as the blogger (too many activities), as they did when they were courting their future wives. And if we were to be honest with ourselves, just like sex is not love, then we have to say that attention and affection are not love either. They are ways of expressing love, very important and essential ways that will set the fate of a marriage.

I don't criticize her lack of sexual desire for her husband but her dismissive attitude that it is not important for the future of her marriage. Imagine if a man were to blog that his lack of emotional desire for his wife was not cause for his wife to consider divorcing him. And what about if he told his wife to find a male friend who would give her attention and affection but not to fall in love with him. Wouldn't he be subjected to a great many virtual 2X4's from his blog readers? Of course he would and he would have them richly deserved.

In some ways, a marriage is like a car. Choosing to neglect to change the oil every couple of thousand miles, transmission fluid, break fluid, coolant levels and tire pressure, will eventually lead to a mechanical breakdown no matter how reliable the brand. Leave the car unlocked, and it will be subjected to have it stolen. The same with marriage, be neglectful in providing sex, attention and affection, and eventually it will lead to marital breakdown. And if a third party notices it, they may lure the neglected spouse away from the other spouse. Why invite marital breakdown?

Lastly, listening is a two way street. It is not just about communicating what is important to her and him listening, but to act in kind to what he is trying to convey to her and she listening to him. Her throwing a hall pass offer, is definitely a sign that she is not listening to him, in lieu of failing to understand that just like attention and affection, sex is an essential way of expressing love.


----------



## Marduk

ocotillo said:


> I'm not sure I'm understanding. She was told point blank that she was wrong over and over. And by other women, no less.


My point is that the "if you don't like it, don't read it" defence isn't a defence at all.


----------



## morituri

EllisRedding said:


> In all fairness, there have been women in this thread who have been open minded and listened to both sides. Unfortunately, for others if you don't agree with their POV, it means that you aren't listening ...


You are correct ER. @SimplyAmorous is one that comes to mind. Too bad I can't think of others but just like SA, I salute them for their true capacity for understanding and acknowledging the male POV.


----------



## Marduk

FrenchFry said:


> Some people honestly feel like this.
> 
> What should we do with them?


It would be best for all involved if I didn't answer that.


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> I'm sorry, but I still find it odd that you are determined that she hire a cook and a maid. Would that really have made you like her more? Because she outsourced some of the household tasks?
> 
> Just out of curiosity, why are all of these tasks hers to do? And her responsibility to figure out in the first place? Isn't that too a form of pressure?
> 
> Maybe he doesn't pressure her to cook or clean, but I don't see him volunteering to help either. So maybe it has absolutely nothing to do with the problem? Maybe, just maybe it isn't actually a manipulative tactic, but just a few more items on the list of things running around in her head?


I _don't_ care if she hires a cook and a maid.

I care that she uses these things as an excuse for what she does, and then when it's offered to remove said things, the answer is no.

The excuse is a distraction and IMHO, a means to an end.


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> The way I read it is that she is struggling with the idea that her whole marriage, her whole life, rests on the fact that her libido is gone. And, yes, she fears she cannot meet his demand.
> 
> Now, clearly, there are a lot of people who do think it *is*, or at least should be, the end of her marriage. That she ought not feel this way and she better step up pronto because he'll leave her in the dust.
> 
> What I find interesting about this, is that *this* is exactly the pressure she is reacting to: put out or get out. Yet, even those who are criticizing her, calling her manipulative and terrible for trying to suggest that maybe not *everything* in her relationship rests on sex, are wielding exactly that same pressure. Put out or get out.
> 
> What you are calling manipulation here assumes that she has never actually conversed with her husband about any of this stuff, and that her only communication on the topic was the hall pass offer.
> 
> And it strikes me that you are deliberately overlooking the fact that she does care how he feels, and she does want his needs to be met, otherwise, she wouldn't have been spending any time at all thinking about how he could also get his needs met within the context of the marriage.
> 
> Would you have been happier with her if she had just said, "look, I'm sorry, I can't do this anymore. I can't meet your needs Maybe we need to split"?


Here's the problem that I have with this scenario.

She never wrote that her husband said 'put out our get out'.

So her pressure is internally motivated. Just like the rest of her behaviour.

There is zero evidence that she cares how he feels. She notes it twice and then drops it.

Now, one might say the absence of evidence isn't evidence of it's absence, but it is circumstantial in the larger pattern.


----------



## Buddy400

techmom said:


> Next time a LD woman comes to the board and asks how to handle her lack of desire, I don't want anyone to suggest to her that she fake it, or just put out.


I think we need an official TAM definition of "Faking it until you make it".

Per Wikipedia, Faking it until you make it "is often recommended as a therapy technique for combating depression. In this case, the idea is to go through the routines of life as if one were enjoying them, despite the fact that initially it feels forced, and continue doing this until the happiness becomes real. This is an example of a positive feedback loop."

The idea is that you do something that you want to do but feel uncomfortable doing until it begins to feel natural and unforced. 

A situation to use this method might be in a case of responsive desire. You enjoy sex when you have it, but it never occurs to you to have it. In this case, the idea is that you push yourself out of your comfort zone until having sex becomes the norm. With my wife and I, the more sex we have, the more we want. On the other hand, sexless periods will just sort of expand until one of us does something to upset the inertia.

I don't think that most people mean that you're just supposed to force yourself to have sex that you do not want. If you do not want to have sex with your SO, then explain this, give the reasons why and let them have a chance to change the offending behavior or attribute (lose weight, change their underwear, etc). Or they can choose not to make the effort to change and live without sex. 

If a SO never, or rarely, wants to have sex and there is nothing that their partner can do to influence this, then a happy marriage and a fulfilling relationship cannot be expected.

When one partner feels in the mood for sex every other week and the other partner feels in the mood 3/4 times a week, it seems like some are saying that the HD partner shouldn't initiate sex more often than every other week (or not initiate at all) since this will "pressure" the LD partner and, therefore, the LD partner will feel even less in the mood. But where does this leave the HD partner? Either sex once every two weeks or even less due to the "pressure". Something of a Lose/Lose situation. If the LD partner truly enjoys sex bi-weekly, it would seem like there wouldn't be serious issues preventing sex (resentment, lack of emotional connection, dirty underwear, etc). In this case, couldn't the LD partner compromise at once or twice a week? Why would that be expecting too much?

And if one is only supposed to have sex when one "is in the mood", what happens when two people each want sex three times a week but those occasions happen to be on different days of the week?


----------



## jld

marduk said:


> Here's the problem that I have with this scenario.
> 
> She never wrote that her husband said 'put out our get out'.
> 
> So her pressure is internally motivated. Just like the rest of her behaviour.
> 
> There is zero evidence that she cares how he feels. She notes it twice and then drops it.
> 
> Now, one might say the absence of evidence isn't evidence of it's absence, but it is circumstantial in the larger pattern.



Why do you think he needs to be protected?


----------



## morituri

jld said:


> Why do you think he needs to be protected?


 @jld please explain this question? I'm perceiving it as a non sequitur (a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement) :scratchhead:


----------



## jld

morituri said:


> @jld please explain this question? I'm perceiving it as a non sequitur (a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement) :scratchhead:


This importance on her caring how he feels.

On one side, a young mother devoting her energy to her children.

On the other side a husband who wants sex.

How can you find these equal, much less his needs greater?

Does that explanation make more sense?


----------



## farsidejunky

jld said:


> This importance on her caring how he feels.
> 
> On one side, a young mother devoting her energy to her children.
> 
> On the other side a husband who wants sex.
> 
> How can you find these equal, much less his needs greater?
> 
> Does that explanation make more sense?


The narrative that she is a poor, down trodden mother selectively omits travel, and the various other things that were clearly more important than her husband.

Is it an aspect? Yes. Is it the whole story? No.


----------



## jld

farsidejunky said:


> The narrative that she is a poor, down trodden mother selectively omits travel, and the various other things that were clearly more important than her husband.
> 
> Is it an aspect? Yes. Is it the whole story? No.


The travel was on the husband's end.

Far, he is welcome to divorce. She seems more than capable of taking care of herself and those girls.

I think many of you see the hall pass as an insult, and a threat to male pride.


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> Why do you think he needs to be protected?


I didn't say that, so I won't defend it.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> This importance on her caring how he feels.
> 
> On one side, a young mother devoting her energy to her children.
> 
> On the other side a husband who wants sex.
> 
> How can you find these equal, much less his needs greater?
> 
> Does that explanation make more sense?


A good marriage includes each spouse caring for the other.

You may label caring as protecting, and indeed there is a component of that, but a larger one in my mind is empathy.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## EllisRedding

jld said:


> This importance on her caring how he feels.
> 
> On one side, a young mother devoting her energy to her children.
> 
> On the other side a husband who wants sex.
> 
> How can you find these equal, much less his needs greater?
> 
> Does that explanation make more sense?


The problem is, the way you word it, basically any guy who gets married and has kids, his needs automatically become irrelevant (or maybe better put bottom of the list).

Another thing I have seen which for some reason seems to get lost, the assumption that the husband is living some sort of country club lifestyle by going to work ... I understand how draining it can be to be a SAH, but it is not fair to then just discount the SO who is out there working every day, dealing with their own stresses, knowing they are responsible for supporting the family financially, and probably will be working a great many more years beyond the years required with young children (assuming they all go to school and aren't home schooled). These are just different types of stresses.


----------



## jld

Idk, Ellis. Dug does not talk about feeling stressed providing for us. To him, it is a normal male responsibility.

He does expect both of us to sacrifice in any way necessary for our children. That is a deep part of his value system.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## morituri

jld said:


> The travel was on the husband's end.


I just re-read the blog and there is nothing that states that it is the husband who travels. The only mention of travel in *The Night I Gave My Husband A Free Pass* is this:



scarymommy said:


> There are a bazillion reasons why being romantically available can't happen as *often as I'd like – kids, work, travel, activities, etc*


Which implies that it is she who travels.



> Far, he is welcome to divorce. She seems more than capable of taking care of herself and those girls.
> 
> *I think many of you see the hall pass as an insult, and a threat to male pride*.


If dug had been as dismissive of your need for his attention and affection as the blogger and gave you a free pass, wouldn't you consider it an insult and a threat to your female pride?

Are you trying to justify the unjustifiable because of her gender?


----------



## jld

The husband is the one traveling. He does it for his work.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

Even asking for his attention does not mean I will get it. I get what he feels like giving.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Buddy400

jld said:


> Idk, Ellis. Dug does not talk about feeling stressed providing for us.


jld,

If it was the desire of men on this site to "be like Dug", then your using Dug as a model of manly behavior would be relevant.

However, I'm not sure that anyone here has expressed that desire.

I'm happy that everything works out for you and Dug. However I, for one, have absolutely no interest in being like Dug or having a marriage like yours. 

It's like trying to advise an atheist by quoting scripture.


----------



## morituri

jld said:


> The husband is the one traveling. He does it for his work.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Really, send me a link. I'm going by the the blog entry we are discussing on this thread.


----------



## jld

Just sharing my own experience, Buddy. That's the value of a forum.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## EllisRedding

jld said:


> Idk, Ellis. Dug does not talk about feeling stressed providing for us. To him, it is a normal male responsibility.
> 
> He does expect both of us to sacrifice in any way necessary for our children. That is a deep part of his value system.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Just because he expects to do it doesn't mean he can't have stress at work. It has nothing to do with "normal" responsibility. Under that assumption, since it appears you were expected to raise the children (probably the normal female responsibility per your H), then at no point should you be dealing with stresses since this is all part of the "normal" female responsibility.


----------



## jld

morituri said:


> Really, send me a link. I'm going by the the blog entry we are discussing on this thread.


Read the whole thread. It has been well-established.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## morituri

jld said:


> Even asking for his attention does not mean I will get it. I get what he feels like giving.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


You have evaded the question. How would YOU feel if Dug had written a male version of that article and said that he gave you a free hall pass to find another man who could provide you all the attention and affection you needed (because he was *"not in the mood"* without falling in love, while believing that this was a way of proving his love for you? Wouldn't you feel hurt and betrayed? Wouldn't your female ego suffer a hit?


----------



## morituri

jld said:


> Read the whole thread. It has been well-established.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I provided the link to the blog article that we are discussing which if you do a word search for "travel" proves my statement. Until you do the same, I will not treat it as evidence.


----------



## jld

EllisRedding said:


> Just because he expects to do it doesn't mean he can't have stress at work. It has nothing to do with "normal" responsibility. Under that assumption, since it appears you were expected to raise the children (probably the normal female responsibility per your H), then at no point should you be dealing with stresses since this is all part of the "normal" female responsibility.


Dug says being home with the kids is stressful. He is an engineer, and really enjoys what he does.

He has always tried to be helpful at home. He really wants me there, and tries to do what he can to make it pleasant for me.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## morituri

jld said:


> Just sharing my own experience, Buddy. That's the value of a forum.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


But you have made it a point that you and Dug are Christians who follow scripture regarding the roles of husband and wife, so how can you condone the bloggers less the Christian behavior? Isn't the wife suppose to "submit" to the husband under Christian doctrine?


----------



## jld

morituri said:


> I provided the link to the blog article that we are discussing which if you do a word search for "travel" proves my statement. Until you do the same, I will not treat it as evidence.


Mori, you are making me laugh. We all know he travels for work. It has been stated several times.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## farsidejunky

morituri said:


> Really, send me a link. I'm going by the the blog entry we are discussing on this thread.


It can't be quoted because it was sent to BL in an email.


----------



## morituri

jld said:


> Mori, you are making me laugh. We all know he travels for work. It has been stated several times.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


And they say we men don't listen 

Once more, I am basing my statement solely on the article titled *The Night I Gave My Husband A Free Pass*itself. If there is any other evidence in other articles she wrote in her blog to support that he is the one who travels, then please link them here. Until that happens, your statement is simply hearsay.


----------



## jld

morituri said:


> You have evaded the question. How would YOU feel if Dug had written a male version of that article and said that he gave you a free hall pass to find another man who could provide you all the attention and affection you needed (because he was *"not in the mood"* without falling in love, while believing that this was a way of proving his love for you? Wouldn't you feel hurt and betrayed? Wouldn't your female ego suffer a hit?


I answered the question fifty pages ago. I would be hurt, and I would wait for him. 

I cannot imagine Dug doing that, ever, btw.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

morituri said:


> But you have made it a point that you and Dug are Christians who follow scripture regarding the roles of husband and wife, so how can you condone the bloggers less the Christian behavior? Isn't the wife suppose to "submit" to the husband under Christian doctrine?


Dug and I grew up Catholic. That is our tie to Christianity. We are fairly liberal politically.

The Christian model of marriage that we believe in is that of the husband giving his life for his wife, and her giving him her life in return. It is a very deep bond.

A husband gets out of the marriage what he puts into it, Mori. It is nature's check on his power.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Fozzy

morituri said:


> But you have made it a point that you and Dug are Christians who follow scripture regarding the roles of husband and wife, so how can you condone the bloggers less the Christian behavior? Isn't the wife suppose to "submit" to the husband under Christian doctrine?


Much of that depends on what flavor of Christianity you adhere to.


----------



## EllisRedding

jld said:


> Dug says being home with the kids is stressful. He is an engineer, and really enjoys what he does.
> 
> He has always tried to be helpful at home. He really wants me there, and tries to do what he can to make it pleasant for me.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Enjoying one's job and stress don't necessarily go hand in hand. I enjoy my job, but that doesn't mean I don't deal with the stress of deadlines, work issues, etc... If you want to make that correlation then you would have to argue that stress raising your children would indicate you don't like it.

I understand your situation may be different since if I understand correctly you homeschooled your children. However, in several posts you have indicated that by virtue of giving birth the woman's needs/sacrifices outweigh the males (its not even close is how you look at it). How does this work, is it an eternal (she sacrificed more then him) approach, does it ever balance out, etc...? Likewise, how about the couple that does not have children, are their sacrifices on equal footing as long as he doesn't knock her up?


----------



## morituri

jld said:


> A husband gets out of the marriage what he puts into it, Mori. It is nature's check on his power.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Indeed, provided he doesn't have a "leaky" wife to start with.


----------



## jld

EllisRedding said:


> Enjoying one's job and stress don't necessarily go hand in hand. I enjoy my job, but that doesn't mean I don't deal with the stress of deadlines, work issues, etc... If you want to make that correlation then you would have to argue that stress raising your children would indicate you don't like it.
> 
> I understand your situation may be different since if I understand correctly you homeschooled your children. However, in several posts you have indicated that by virtue of giving birth the woman's needs/sacrifices outweigh the males (its not even close is how you look at it). How does this work, is it an eternal (she sacrificed more then him) approach, does it ever balance out, etc...? Likewise, how about the couple that does not have children, are their sacrifices on equal footing as long as he doesn't knock her up?


I think Dug believes that being a mother is the most important role a woman will ever have. He has great respect for mothers. He respects women, period.

I never hear him complain about fatherly responsibilities, like providing for a family. Dug really wanted to be a dad, and I think he is very grateful for the opportunity.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## EllisRedding

jld said:


> I think Dug believes that being a mother is the most important role a woman will ever have. He has great respect for mothers. He respects women, period.
> 
> I never hear him complain about fatherly responsibilities, like providing for a family. Dug really wanted to be a dad, and I think he is very grateful for the opportunity.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


You are not answering the questions. You are implying the guys here don't respect women b/c we don't follow your H's view which is way off point.

I really wanted to be a dad, like I am sure a lot of other guys. I don't follow what that has to do with anything. if you mean it in terms of sacrifice (i.e. he really wanted to be a dad so there are no sacrifices involved) than I would argue if you really wanted to be a mom then the same would apply to you.


----------



## jld

morituri said:


> Indeed, provided he doesn't have a "leaky" wife to start with.


He picked her, didn't he?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## morituri

jld said:


> He picked her, didn't he?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Yes and "bait and switch" is a very common tactic to attract someone into marriage. It isn't until after marriage, that the true person you marry comes out.


----------



## morituri

A person can love her/his spouse unconditionally but it doesn't mean that he/she should continue with the marriage.


----------



## Icey181

jld said:


> This importance on her caring how he feels.
> 
> On one side, a young mother devoting her energy to her children.
> 
> On the other side a husband who wants sex.
> 
> How can you find these equal, much less his needs greater?
> 
> Does that explanation make more sense?


That you would caricature the situation in this way speaks rather clearly to your biases when it comes to these situations JLD.

True, she is a young mother devoting her energy to her children and he is a young husband who wants sex.

She also happens to be a women with the financial resources to alleviate some of the work who refuses to take advantage of that and yet despite all of the amazing, libido killing pressures, finds time to pursue a hobby-career in writing.

And he happens to be a devoted husband and father who shoulders the entire burden of financially supporting the family by being _away from it_ for extended periods of time.

Neither side is superior in their needs.

However, given the blog and the emails its sounds like the wife was/is very much self-focused on her and did not even consider the needs of her husband.

Which is of course his fault, according to your world view somehow…


----------



## jld

EllisRedding said:


> You are not answering the questions. You are implying the guys here don't respect women b/c we don't follow your H's view which is way off point.
> 
> I really wanted to be a dad, like I am sure a lot of other guys. I don't follow what that has to do with anything. if you mean it in terms of sacrifice (i.e. he really wanted to be a dad so there are no sacrifices involved) than I would argue if you really wanted to be a mom then the same would apply to you.


I don't think I am implying anything. And I thought I was answering your questions. My mind may not function exactly like yours, is all.

I think the way Dug sees it, he wanted to marry me, he wanted me to give him children, he wants me at home. To that end, he is happy to provide for us, and makes reasonable attempts to keep me happy. 

Getting married and having children was his idea. He told me right away when we started dating that he wanted us to breastfeed and homeschool our children. I remember thinking, "I guess this means we are getting married."

Just how it all turned out for us, I guess. I would not have had five kids with a man less committed than Dug, that's for sure.


----------



## jld

morituri said:


> Yes and "bait and switch" is a very common tactic to attract someone into marriage. It isn't until after marriage, that the true person you marry comes out.


You have to be patient and really get to know the person. No rushing into it.

You also have to look at your own values. "Like attracts like."


----------



## Icey181

jld said:


> You have to be patient and really get to know the person. No rushing into it.
> 
> You also have to look at your own values. "Like attracts like."


Out of curiosity, in what situations do you actually hold _women_ personally responsible for things?

Or is everything the failing of the man not to just figure it out and fix it first?


----------



## Cosmos

morituri said:


> I just re-read the blog and there is nothing that states that it is the husband who travels.


It isn't in the Hall Pass blog. I think we learned about her H's travelling from either Blossom or those who also read this blog:- The 20 Thoughts Moms Have When Their Husbands Are Away On Business - Scary Mommy


----------



## jld

Icey181 said:


> That you would caricature the situation in this way speaks rather clearly to your biases when it comes to these situations JLD.
> 
> True, she is a young mother devoting her energy to her children and he is a young husband who wants sex.
> 
> She also happens to be a women with the financial resources to alleviate some of the work who refuses to take advantage of that and yet despite all of the amazing, libido killing pressures, finds time to pursue a hobby-career in writing.
> 
> And he happens to be a devoted husband and father who shoulders the entire burden of financially supporting the family by being _away from it_ for extended periods of time.
> 
> Neither side is superior in their needs.
> 
> However, given the blog and the emails its sounds like the wife was/is very much self-focused on her and did not even consider the needs of her husband.
> 
> Which is of course his fault, according to your world view somehow…


My husband has spent most of the last 6 years away from our family, Icey. He is never whiny or needy, and certainly not for sex. If he wants it, he initiates. Occasionally I am not up to it. It is never treated as a big deal. There is always next time.

Sorry, just not feeling sympathy towards the husband.


----------



## morituri

Cosmos said:


> It isn't in the Hall Pass blog. I think we learned about her H's travelling from either Blossom or those who also read this blog:- The 20 Thoughts Moms Have When Their Husbands Are Away On Business - Scary Mommy


Thank you Cosmos.


----------



## Icey181

Cosmos said:


> It isn't in the Hall Pass blog. I think we learned about her H's travelling from either Blossom or those who also read this blog:- The 20 Thoughts Moms Have When Their Husbands Are Away On Business - Scary Mommy


Cosmos is correct.

The blogger failed to mention that her husband sometimes spends weeks at a time separated from his family while he pays the bills.

Why she would not want to mention that her husband routinely sacrifices his emotional and physical attachment to his wife and children in order to support his family is beyond me…/sarcasm


----------



## Icey181

jld said:


> My husband has spent most of the last 6 years away from our family, Icey. He is never whiny or needy, and certainly not for sex. If he wants it, he initiates. Occasionally I am not up to it. It is never treated as a big deal. There is always next time.
> 
> Sorry, just not feeling sympathy towards the husband.


To be honest, I do not think you have ever felt sympathy for a husband in any situation I have seen you comment on.

Nor have you ever held a woman accountable either.


----------



## morituri

jld said:


> You have to be patient and really get to know the person. No rushing into it.
> 
> You also have to look at your own values. "Like attracts like."


You are correct but without the interaction of day to day living, you really don't truly get to know the person.


----------



## jld

Icey181 said:


> Out of curiosity, in what situations do you actually hold _women_ personally responsible for things?
> 
> Or is everything the failing of the man not to just figure it out and fix it first?


I have encouraged women to use active listening with their husbands. I have never advised denying sex.

And that last one is where I wonder if I am wrong. French fry seems to have had success with that approach.

Mostly women need to focus on their own lives before marriage, getting an education, work experience, establishing a healthy life. 

They need to be extremely careful who they marry. Extremely. It is not worth marrying if the man is not a top notch guy. 

He should be sacrificing for you, ladies. If he is not, if he is selfish, if he is immature, you are so much better alone.


----------



## jld

morituri said:


> You are correct but without the interaction of day to day living, you really don't truly get to know the person.


Dug and I lived together for a year before we got married. I am not saying it is essential, but I really do think it was helpful.


----------



## EllisRedding

jld said:


> I don't think I am implying anything. And I thought I was answering your questions. My mind may not function exactly like yours, is all.
> 
> I think the way Dug sees it, he wanted to marry me, he wanted me to give him children, he wants me at home. To that end, he is happy to provide for us, and makes reasonable attempts to keep me happy.
> 
> Getting married and having children was his idea. He told me right away when we started dating that he wanted us to breastfeed and homeschool our children. I remember thinking, "I guess this means we are getting married."
> 
> Just how it all turned out for us, I guess. I would not have had five kids with a man less committed than Dug, that's for sure.


You equate children with sacrifice being greater for the female. In the situation where the couple has no kids, does that imply the sacrifice meter is equal?

In a situation where there are children, does the sacrifice meter always swing in favor of the female, is it that way until death do us part, does it ever balance out (not talking specifically about your marriage, more on a general basis)?


----------



## morituri

jld said:


> I have encouraged women to use active listening with their husbands. I have never advised denying sex.
> 
> And that last one is where I wonder if I am wrong. French fry seems to have had success with that approach.
> 
> Mostly women need to focus on their own lives before marriage, getting an education, work experience, establishing a healthy life.
> 
> They need to be extremely careful who they marry. Extremely. It is not worth marrying if the man is not a top notch guy.
> 
> He should be sacrificing for you, ladies. If he is not, if he is selfish, if he is immature, you are so much better alone.


Why are you using the men's clubhouse as your podium to speak to other women?


----------



## jld

Icey181 said:


> To be honest, I do not think you have ever felt sympathy for a husband in any situation I have seen you comment on.
> 
> Nor have you ever held a woman accountable either.


The point of looking at the man is to empower him. If he becomes stronger in himself, he is naturally going to be more appealing to his wife.

By empowering him, I mean encouraging him to use empathy, transparency, and patience with his wife. He also probably needs to work on his integrity. 

As he works on himself, improving his character, he is going to feel better about himself. His wife is likely to take note, and respond.

If instead, I blame her, or tell her it is half her fault, how does the husband become stronger? He just becomes dependent on somehow outside his marriage indulging his self-pity. It makes him even weaker than when he started out.

Per Gottman's research, men have influence over women. I want them to use that influence wisely.


----------



## ocotillo

always_alone said:


> But you said yourself that it was pretty clear where the tide of opinion lay. And with the exception of jld, there was absolutely zero sympathy for her viewpoint when I showed up. Even now, I don't see all that much sympathy for her POV.


I hear you AA. I honestly think there are a number of things working against empathy here.

In no particular order:

*The Venue:* Despite the insistence on this thread, scarrymommy.com is not a blog and these are not the semi-private, Julie Powell style of ruminations typical of a blog. Scarrymommy.com is a self-described parenting website with a president, a content manager, editors, etc. and the author is a freelance writer. 


*Social Media:* Way back on page 2 of this thread, Lila said the following:

(Comment appears to have been deleted, but here it is anyway..)


> I can only speak for my experience but after my son's birth I quickly realized that my life was forever changed and it would never go back to the carefree days pre-motherhood....
> 
> ...I was always going to have my child's wellbeing in the back on my mind and for a time it would be my #1 focus.


This falls in line with how jld has portrayed the author and I have the utmost respect for that. 

But as soccermom2three pointed out, it has become stylish for women to say horrible things about their husbands and children on social media for (apparently) comedic effect. 

Maybe I'm just a grumpy old curmudgeon who needs to go out and buy himself a sense of humor, but I don't find this stuff funny:




















*The Delivery: * People don't have a lot of empathy if they feel that a person's approach is fundamentally unfair. From "Remove the rafter in thine own eye" to, "Physician heal thyself" there are awful lot of sayings expressing various degrees of scorn for this. 

People would have been far more empathetic if she'd said half the stuff you've said on this thread.


----------



## jld

EllisRedding said:


> You equate children with sacrifice being greater for the female. In the situation where the couple has no kids, does that imply the sacrifice meter is equal?
> 
> In a situation where there are children, does the sacrifice meter always swing in favor of the female, is it that way until death do us part, does it ever balance out (not talking specifically about your marriage, more on a general basis)?


I think a good husband will always sacrifice for his wife, children or not.

All I can tell you here is that the more Dug does for me, the more I am inspired to do for him. YMMV.


----------



## EllisRedding

jld said:


> I think a good husband will always sacrifice for his wife, children or not.
> 
> All I can tell you here is that the more Dug does for me, the more I am inspired to do for him. YMMV.


And do you feel a good wife will always sacrifice for her husband regardless of children, or is the inferred that he should be the one making the sacrifices and hope that she reciprocates (and if she doesn't it is because either he does not inspire her or he chose poorly)?


----------



## Icey181

jld said:


> The point of looking at the man is to empower him. If he becomes stronger in himself, he is naturally going to be more appealing to his wife.


So…his responsibility.

Nothing for the woman to do here.



jld said:


> By empowering him, I mean encouraging him to use empathy, transparency, and patience with his wife.


Again, his responsibility.

Nothing for the wife to be responsible for.



jld said:


> He also probably needs to work on his integrity.


Based on what?

Your assumption that as a man he inherently has integrity problems? 

Do I really have to explain how utterly insulting and misandrist that statement is?



jld said:


> As he works on himself, improving his character, he is going to feel better about himself. His wife is likely to take note, and respond.


Ah…here is the woman's responsibility.

She gets to "respond" to his hard work.

In other words, she does not have to change.



jld said:


> If instead, I blame her, or tell her it is half her fault, how does the husband become stronger? He just becomes dependent on somehow outside his marriage indulging his self-pity. It makes him even weaker than when he started out.


I know.

I mean, it's not like there is someone _inside the marriage_ who could possible offer equal levels of _understanding_ and _support_.

But then that would require the _woman_ to take some responsibility for her actions and actually make some changes too.

God forbid that, right?



jld said:


> Per Gottman's research, men have influence over women. I want them to use that influence wisely.


Gottman's research is your go to crutch to pretend you have something approaching proof.

Gottmann looked at relationships prone to domestic violence in which submissive women sought to mediate aggressive and violent men by wielding the soft power of influence.

Interesting choice on your part.


----------



## samyeagar

One thing to keep in mind is that jld and Dug have a fairly rigid parent/child dynamic in their marriage.

Parents are responsible for their children and their behaviors, where children have little true responsibility or repercussions for their actions. When a parent and child get into an argument, parents are often reminded that they are the grownups, they need to take the high road, show a good example, be more mature, etc. This dynamic works wonderfully for them, and they should not be criticized for that.

This dynamic however is not to everyone's, possibly most peoples taste, so one needs to keep that in mind when considering jld's and Dugs experiences.


----------



## Icey181

The interesting thing JLD, is that you seem to think that no matter what happens, it is the man's responsibility to shoulder all of the burden of both the real world and the emotional world, sacrifice in total, and be held utterly accountable for all failings within the relationship.

I find it interesting that you are so dedicated to shifting any and all responsibility of relationships onto the shoulders of men.

Your conception of a marriage is that of a caretaker and his charges.

It works for you because, as best as I can tell, your relationship is centered around a uniquely aggressive and otherwise stoic man and a uniquely submissive and docile wife.

For the other 99.99% of the general population in which women are not submissive agents who constantly reward their husbands with deference and sex _that does not work_.

Look at this case.

We have a man who sacrifices his time and personal attachment to both his wife and family in order to provide financially.

And what does he get?

A woman complaining about all of the pressures on her life (but refuses to use the resources _he provides_ to alleviate them) and then using them as an excuse to not provide respect, deference, or sex.

Given your world view and assuming some degree of logical consistency instead of a sexist bias, I would have expected you to complain that this woman is _failing_ in her duties as a wife and needs to get with the program.

So which is it?


----------



## jld

EllisRedding said:


> And do you feel a good wife will always sacrifice for her husband regardless of children, or is the inferred that he should be the one making the sacrifices and hope that she reciprocates (and if she doesn't it is because either he does not inspire her or he chose poorly)?


I think the husband goes first. 

Guys, I don't really get where you're coming from. It's like you are very concerned that in the middle of carrying her across the threshhold, the man should insist on stopping, and she has to pick him up and carry him the rest of the way. That 50/50 thing again. Does not sound romantic to me.

But certainly, that is jmo.


----------



## jld

Icey181 said:


> The interesting thing JLD, is that you seem to think that no matter what happens, it is the man's responsibility to shoulder all of the burden of both the real world and the emotional world, sacrifice in total, and be held utterly accountable for all failings within the relationship.
> 
> I find it interesting that you are so dedicated to shifting any and all responsibility of relationships onto the shoulders of men.
> 
> Your conception of a marriage is that of a caretaker and his charges.
> 
> It works for you because, as best as I can tell, your relationship is centered around a uniquely aggressive and otherwise stoic man and a uniquely submissive and docile wife.
> 
> For the other 99.99% of the general population in which women are not submissive agents who constantly reward their husbands with deference and sex _that does not work_.
> 
> Look at this case.
> 
> We have a man who sacrifices his time and personal attachment to both his wife and family in order to provide financially.
> 
> And what does he get?
> 
> A woman complaining about all of the pressures on her life (but refuses to use the resources _he provides_ to alleviate them) and then using them as an excuse to not provide respect, deference, or sex.
> 
> Given your world view and assuming some degree of logical consistency instead of a sexist bias, I would have expected you to complain that this woman is _failing_ in her duties as a wife and needs to get with the program.
> 
> So which is it?


Putting pressure on her is just going to build resentment. You want to inspire her to be open to sex. Be open to learning how to inspire her, not just having her meet your desires.

"Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Teach him how to fish, and he eats for the rest of his life."

Sorry, Icey, there is just no getting around work for the man.


----------



## Icey181

jld said:


> I think the husband goes first.
> 
> Guys, I don't really get where you're coming from. It's like you are very concerned that in the middle of carrying her across the threshhold, the man should insist on stopping, and she has to pick him up and carry him the rest of the way. That 50/50 thing again. Does not sound romantic to me.
> 
> But certainly, that is jmo.


So in other words, despite all of your usages of Gottman's name you do not actually endorse his arguments for creating a stable marriage including Nurturing, Turning Towards _Each Other_, or _Accepting Influence_.

Because the last time I checked Gottmann held both spouses responsible for those attributes and actions.

Not just the husband.

Also, to your horrible analogy.

Replace "threshold" with the words "real life."

And yes.

I absolutely expect my wife to stop and bear half the burden to get _us_ through.


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> The travel was on the husband's end.
> 
> Far, he is welcome to divorce. She seems more than capable of taking care of herself and those girls.
> 
> I think many of you see the hall pass as an insult, and a threat to male pride.


Read her blog.

One of my favorites was the 'Ode To My Baby's Daddy.'


----------



## Icey181

jld said:


> Putting pressure on her is just going to build resentment. You want to inspire her to be open to sex. Be open to learning how to inspire her, not just having her meet your desires.
> 
> "Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Teach him how to fish, and he eats for the rest of his life."
> 
> Sorry, Icey, there is just no getting around work for the man.


It has nothing to do with getting around work for the man.

Your goal is and always has been to explain why _women_ are special snowflakes who have to be catered to.

Mainly because you appear to think women are basically children who need their emotions protected and who cannot be asked to share the burdens of personal growth and adult responsibility.

How can you trust a woman with influence over her husband if she does not even have the strength of self to be an adult?


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> I have encouraged women to use active listening with their husbands. I have never advised denying sex.
> 
> And that last one is where I wonder if I am wrong. French fry seems to have had success with that approach.
> 
> Mostly women need to focus on their own lives before marriage, getting an education, work experience, establishing a healthy life.
> 
> They need to be extremely careful who they marry. Extremely. It is not worth marrying if the man is not a top notch guy.
> 
> He should be sacrificing for you, ladies. If he is not, if he is selfish, if he is immature, you are so much better alone.


You had me up until that last paragraph, jld.

I have seldom seen martyrdom lead to a path of mutual happiness.


----------



## jld

Icey181 said:


> So in other words, despite all of your usages of Gottman's name you do not actually endorse his arguments for creating a stable marriage including Nurturing, Turning Towards _Each Other_, or _Accepting Influence_.
> 
> Because the last time I checked Gottmann held both spouses responsible for those attributes and actions.
> 
> Not just the husband.
> 
> Also, to your horrible analogy.
> 
> Replace "threshold" with the words "real life."
> 
> And yes.
> 
> I absolutely expect my wife to stop and bear half the burden to get _us_ through.


If it works for you, great. 

It is certainly wonderful if the wife is working on the marriage, too. But even if she is not, I think her husband's leadership and example can inspire her to that end. 

Remember, I am trying to empower husbands. I am trying to help them remain relevant in their marriages, at a time when women are ascending in the world, and may no longer have as much need of men as in the past.


----------



## jld

Icey181 said:


> It has nothing to do with getting around work for the man.
> 
> Your goal is and always has been to explain why _women_ are special snowflakes who have to be catered to.
> 
> Mainly because you appear to think women are basically children who need their emotions protected and who cannot be asked to share the burdens of personal growth and adult responsibility.
> 
> How can you trust a woman with influence over her husband if she does not even have the strength of self to be an adult?


I think my daughter would disagree strongly with that.


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> I think the husband goes first.
> 
> Guys, I don't really get where you're coming from. It's like you are very concerned that in the middle of carrying her across the threshhold, the man should insist on stopping, and she has to pick him up and carry him the rest of the way. That 50/50 thing again. Does not sound romantic to me.
> 
> But certainly, that is jmo.


I think it's deeper than that, jld, and not really about that at all. It just seems that way.

I think what it is, is that you and dug occupy a fixed point in the universe. Emotionally, nothing changes. For you, that is security. For me, that is a slow death.

Dug is a mountain. Mountains don't generally move, and they're pretty, so you can build a house on them.

For me, I need to grow. I need to move, evolve, change, adapt. Because of this, there are times that I may need my wife to shoulder different loads at different times, and vice versa. In this way, we partner to help each other grow.

I have no problem shouldering most of the load, most of the time. Or all of the load for a short period of time. But I will not carry her all of the time, nor will I remain a fixed point.

I am human; I breathe, I grow, I move.


----------



## Icey181

jld said:


> I think my daughter would disagree strongly with that.


Meaning what exactly?

Everything you say down to your signature quote argues that women are "emotional storms" who need to be taken care of by their husbands.

You are _not_ trying to empower husbands.

You are trying to explain why women get to act like children, be emotional wrecks, and be taken care of instead of having to be real adults and take responsibility for their lives, including their marriages.


----------



## jld

Icey181 said:


> Meaning what exactly?
> 
> Everything you say down to your signature quote argues that women are "emotional storms" who need to be taken care of by their husbands.
> 
> You are _not_ trying to empower husbands.
> 
> You are trying to explain why women get to act like children, be emotional wrecks, and be taken care of instead of having to be real adults and take responsibility for their lives, including their marriages.


Icey, we are living in a time when women are achieving high levels of economic independence. My own daughter is halfway through a chemical engineering degree, with some pretty impressive achievements. She is not going to need a man. The only kind of man she is going to want, or accept, is a highly intelligent, mature, responsible man.

Again, I am trying to help men become stronger in themselves. The point of that quote in my signature is that men can help themselves and their wives by not taking their wives' emotions personally. I have stressed that over and over again on TAM. Touchiness in a man is not attractive. Confidence and kindness are.


----------



## Buddy400

samyeagar said:


> One thing to keep in mind is that jld and Dug have a fairly rigid parent/child dynamic in their marriage.


I understand that and have no issues with how they run their relationship. It works for them so, have at it.

However, jld insists on providing advice to people who don't have that dynamic in their marriage. She'd do as much good giving martial advice on a feminist website.

Now, if this was a Christian / Submissive Wife site, I'd understand.


----------



## Icey181

jld said:


> Icey, we are living in a time when women are achieving high levels of economic independence. My own daughter is halfway through a chemical engineering degree, with some pretty impressive achievements. She is not going to need a man. The only kind of man she is going to want, or accept, is a highly intelligent, mature, responsible man.




Women have not been economically dependent on men since the clock turned to January 1, 1900.

And if we want to be completely blunt; men have never _needed_ women. Well, at least not wives.

Short of having children and mothers, wives are not necessary.

The ironic thing is that women in your daughter's position are finding it increasingly difficult to marry their "ideal men" because they are still looking to "marry up."



jld said:


> Again, I am trying to help men become stronger in themselves. The point of that quote in my signature is that men can help themselves and their wives by not taking their wives' emotions personally. I have stressed that over and over again on TAM. Touchiness in a man is not attractive. Confidence and kindness are.


In other words, you want to help men by explaining that women are emotionally children and that they have to learn not to take the tantrums personally.

Funny how none of your advice ever requires the women to grow up and act like mature adults who can control their emotions.


----------



## Fozzy

Nobody is better served by limiting viewpoints. There's no pre-approved relationship doctrine.


----------



## jld

Eye rolls are reactive, Icey.


----------



## Icey181

Of course they are.

I found what you said utterly ridiculous and figured that, since there was an emoticon for the actual thing I did in real life, I would use it. :wink2:


(See what I did there?)


----------



## jld

Fozzy said:


> Nobody is better served by limiting viewpoints. There's no pre-approved relationship doctrine.


The way I see it, we are all just sharing our opinions and experiences. If we all thought the same way, what would be the point of a forum?


----------



## jld

Icey181 said:


> Of course they are.
> 
> I found what you said utterly ridiculous and figured that, since there was an emoticon for the actual thing I did in real life, I would use it. :wink2:
> 
> 
> (See what I did there?)


No. What did you do?


----------



## samyeagar

Buddy400 said:


> I understand that and have no issues with how they run their relationship. It works for them so, have at it.
> 
> *However, jld insists on providing advice to people who don't have that dynamic in their marriage.* She'd do as much good giving martial advice on a feminist website.
> 
> Now, if this was a Christian / Submissive Wife site, I'd understand.


And there is nothing wrong with that, nor should anyone try and stifle her and Dug's input. That said, it is important for those seeking advice here to be made aware of the fact that jld and Dug have an outlier dynamic that largely does not apply to the vast majority of people or relationships.


----------



## jld

Icey, we are all just sharing our opinions. It is more interesting that way. Nobody has to follow anyone's advice.


----------



## Icey181

Interesting and useful are not the same things.

While I think your relationship dynamic is interesting and am fascinated with how you can so readily hold mutually exclusive ideas in your head, I do not find that advice to be useful, in the least.

To say that your relationship is unique is an understatement.

Arguing that men just need to give up on finding a partner and accept a lifetime of being Daddy to your wife because she just cannot be expected to grow and act as a mature adult is neither empowering or helpful however.


----------



## ocotillo

jld said:


> Icey, we are living in a time when women are achieving high levels of economic independence. My own daughter is halfway through a chemical engineering degree, with some pretty impressive achievements. She is not going to need a man. The only kind of man she is going to want, or accept, is a highly intelligent, mature, responsible man.


jld,

There is a list of television shows as long as my arm that my wife refuses to watch because she believes they portray a negative stereotype of women as essentially emotional creatures whose absence of a sense of fairness makes them unfit to hold positions of authority.

Over the years, these have included (But are not limited to) _The Closer, The Blacklist, Grey's Anatomy, Bones and The Good Wife._

I agree that there is a lot that a man can do to set the tone, but leading simply you're the man and that's what men do? There is an implication in that which is not lost on educated women.


----------



## jld

ocotillo said:


> jld,
> 
> There is a list of television shows as long as my arm that my wife refuses to watch because she believes they portray a negative stereotype of women as essentially emotional creatures whose absence of a sense of fairness makes them unfit to hold positions of authority.
> 
> Over the years, these have included (But are not limited to) _The Closer, The Blacklist, Grey's Anatomy, Bones and The Good Wife._
> 
> I agree that there is a lot that a man can do to set the tone, but leading simply you're the man and that's what men do? There is an implication in that which is not lost on educated women.


Whatever makes you happy, ocotillo.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Icey181 said:


> True in general.
> 
> However, when the given advice is to treat women as children incapable of mature responsibilities and to require the man to be a stoic source of all agency and responsibility, this forum's general reaction has been to refer to that as _bad advice._


Yup. Plain and simple. Bad advice. And if I were treated that way, I would not be happy. And if I ACTED the way she describes, I would be, rightly, divorced. My husband wants a grown up for a wife. It sounds like you do to.


----------



## EllisRedding

Well this has been an interesting read :grin2:

I think this may have been brought up (just scanning through the responses now), but I am not quite following the rationale that b/c women are moving up in the world men need to adapt a "cater to them attitude", otherwise women would have no need for men  Maybe I am misinterpreting? How is it that a woman won't need a man but the same would not apply for men not needing women  Aside from implying I guess that men will just be viewed as sperm donors, this seems to also imply that women are weak/fragile, unable to handle their emotions in an adult manner...


----------



## jld

Bugged said:


> Red pill crap jld. The only winning move, is not to play.
> 
> ps: my sister is a chemical engineer.




I saw those French ads you put up. Very good.

That is great, that your sister has a STEM degree. I think you said you do, too. Good money there. 

My daughter loves her studies. She is going to spend this next year in Switzerland. She is fluent in French, but has never done technical studies in that language. She is excited to expand her knowledge base.

When she comes back, she will have just one year left, and then plans to work as a consultant. I did not realize it was possible to do that right out of school, but she says it is. 

You make interesting posts, Bugged. It is always helpful to get different angles on things.


----------



## EleGirl

EllisRedding said:


> Well this has been an interesting read :grin2:
> 
> I think this may have been brought up (just scanning through the responses now), but I am not quite following the rationale that b/c women are moving up in the world men need to adapt a "cater to them attitude", otherwise women would have no need for men  Maybe I am misinterpreting? How is it that a woman won't need a man but the same would not apply for men not needing women  Aside from implying I guess that men will just be viewed as sperm donors, this seems to also imply that women are weak/fragile, unable to handle their emotions in an adult manner...


Yes you are misinterpreting. The point is that in the past, when women married, choosing a man for his ability to support her and her children was a huge consideration. It was often the major consideration.

Today, women who can support themselves can give other aspects of a man a lot more weight.


----------



## ocotillo

jld said:


> Whatever makes you happy, ocotillo.


I tend to view it more along the lines of accepting the world we live in for what it is.

If paternalism is going to result in a charred, smoking hole in the ceiling where your wife went through it, then an intelligent, mature, responsible man would be well advised to try a different tack.


----------



## jld

ocotillo said:


> I tend to view it more along the lines of accepting the world we live in for what it is.
> 
> If paternalism is going to result in a charred, smoking hole in the ceiling where your wife went through it, then an intelligent, mature, responsible man would be well advised to try a different tack.


Yes, when something, whatever it is, is not working, the mature, intelligent, responsible thing to do is to consider doing something different.


----------



## Buddy400

EleGirl said:


> Yes you are misinterpreting. The point is that in the past, when women married, choosing a man for his ability to support her and her children was a huge consideration. It was often the major consideration.
> 
> Today, women who can support themselves can give other aspects of a man a lot more weight.


I believe this is the fundamental problem facing modern women.

It used to be that one of the major factors that made particular men attractive to women was his potential to support her and her children. In the modern world this is no longer necessary (upper class* women can now make as much money as upper class men and lower class men can no longer make more money than lower class women).

If women continue to look for men that are more successful than themselves, that's going to be an increasingly small pool of prospects. Unless women learn to value earnings (real or potential) less and something else (not sure what) more, they'll have trouble finding suitable marriage partners. 

I think that women have a hard time respecting men that make less than them. They'll have to learn to deal with that.

* using "class" in it's economic meaning


----------



## jld

Bugged said:


> That's why in Europe noone gets married anymore :lol:
> 
> 
> ps: it's a joke...


:grin2: Dug agrees. I would like to post what he said, but some folks might be offended.

Lol, he just added that if you have to work, take care of kids, *and* take care of a man, what is the appeal?


----------



## NobodySpecial

Buddy400 said:


> I believe this is the fundamental problem facing modern women.
> 
> It used to be that one of the major factors that made particular men attractive to women was his potential to support her and her children. In the modern world this is no longer necessary (upper class* women can now make as much money as upper class men and lower class men can no longer make more money than lower class women).
> 
> If women continue to look for men that are more successful than themselves, that's going to be an increasingly small pool of prospects. Unless women learn to value earnings (real or potential) less and something else (not sure what) more, they'll have trouble finding suitable marriage partners.
> 
> I think that women have a hard time respecting men that make less than them. They'll have to learn to deal with that.
> 
> * using "class" in it's economic meaning


In this day and age, the value on earnings just is not there. I out earn my husband at the moment by 100%. I respect him for who he is, his character, his value system. I love him for who he is, not what he earns. If I were a man and was valued for my wallet, I would think that would be lonely.


----------



## Fozzy

Bugged said:


> That's why in Europe noone gets married anymore :lol:
> 
> 
> *ps: it's a joke..*.


Not really. I think this is starting to become more of a trend where nobody's in a huge rush to get married anymore. It's gotten a lot of attention that men are forgoing marriage altogether more and more these days. It wouldn't surprise me if a lot of women start doing the same.


----------



## Fozzy

NobodySpecial said:


> In this day and age, the value on earnings just is not there. I out earn my husband at the moment by 100%. I respect him for who he is, his character, his value system. I love him for who he is, not what he earns. If I were a man and was valued for my wallet, I would think that would be lonely.


My brother's wife out-earns him by a considerable margin. It causes quite a lot of tension between them. He loves what he does, but she feels that money is the measure of success.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Fozzy said:


> My brother's wife out-earns him by a considerable margin. It causes quite a lot of tension between them. He loves what he does, but she feels that money is the measure of success.


Lots of people, male and female, are money focused. Doesn't even sound like your sil thinks it is a measure of success FOR MEN but in general. More of a money focus than gender thing.


----------



## EllisRedding

EleGirl said:


> Yes you are misinterpreting. The point is that in the past, when women married, choosing a man for his ability to support her and her children was a huge consideration. It was often the major consideration.
> 
> Today, women who can support themselves can give other aspects of a man a lot more weight.


I agree with that, but that is where I don't follow jld. To quote Icey "However, when the given advice is to treat women as children incapable of mature responsibilities and to require the man to be a stoic source of all agency and responsibility." That is how jld's advice comes across (to me at least). So on one hand you have a woman who can now support themselves, is independent, etc..., so for a guy to stay in the game they need to treat that same woman as incapable, emotionally unstable, etc...? I am sure we can agree to disagree with this, but it just doesn't add up.


----------



## EleGirl

Icey181 said:


> The ironic thing is that women in your daughter's position are finding it increasingly difficult to marry their "ideal men" because they are still looking to "marry up."


Most of the women I know are in her "daughter's position". None of them have had a problem finding that they consider the "idea man" to marry. Most are in good, long term marriages.

If men are rejecting women who have degrees and a career they just might want to reconsider. Marriages in which the woman is over 25 and has a college degree have the lowest divorce rate.


----------



## Fozzy

NobodySpecial said:


> Lots of people, male and female, are money focused. Doesn't even sound like your sil thinks it is a measure of success FOR MEN but in general. More of a money focus than gender thing.


It's at least partially a cultural thing also. They've been together for over 10 years and they're both still dealing with culture shock.


----------



## EllisRedding

NobodySpecial said:


> Lots of people, male and female, are money focused. Doesn't even sound like your sil thinks it is a measure of success FOR MEN but in general. More of a money focus than gender thing.


Society has become very materialistic, especially in part thanks to social media. So now it is not just "Keeping up with the Joneses" in terms of your neighbors, but also your facebook/instagram, etc... "friends"


----------



## EleGirl

EllisRedding said:


> I agree with that, but that is where I don't follow jld. To quote Icey "However, when the given advice is to treat women as children incapable of mature responsibilities and to require the man to be a stoic source of all agency and responsibility." That is how jld's advice comes across (to me at least). So on one hand you have a woman who can now support themselves, is independent, etc..., so for a guy to stay in the game they need to treat that same woman as incapable, emotionally unstable, etc...? I am sure we can agree to disagree with this, but it just doesn't add up.


I agree that women are not like children and should not be treated as children. I also agree that woman are as capable as men of being strong, responsible people. Both spouses should be held to the same standards.

JLD is entitled to her opinions and to voice them here, just as everyone else is. There is no one TAM view point on marriage.


----------



## Tall Average Guy

NobodySpecial said:


> In this day and age, the value on earnings just is not there. I out earn my husband at the moment by 100%. I respect him for who he is, his character, his value system. I love him for who he is, not what he earns. If I were a man and was valued for my wallet, I would think that would be lonely.


I don't know that it necessarily all about valuing them for their wallet (though that is part of it), so much as using their wallet as a proxy for the type of man that they want. A friend of mine's sister went to an Ivy League school and had a great job. She was insistent that her husband be at least her equal in education, career and earnings. She did not want to support a man monetarily. My friend (who just got married) said this is not uncommon when he was in the dating world.

Certainly, she is well within her rights to seek what she wants. But it will make things difficult if she narrows her requirements so much. It also makes me wonder what happens if she surpasses him in career, or he loses his job.


----------



## EllisRedding

EleGirl said:


> I agree that women are not like children and should not be treated as children. I also agree that woman are as capable as men of being strong, responsible people. Both spouses should be held to the same standards.
> 
> *JLD is entitled to her opinions and to voice them here, just as everyone else is. There is no one TAM view point on marriage.*


Um, ok on the bolded. Don't recall ever saying JLD couldn't voice her opinion, and don't believe anyone here has said their POV is the official TAM POV


----------



## morituri

Bugged said:


> That's why in Europe noone gets married anymore :lol:
> 
> 
> ps: it's a joke...


Good for them. It means that they are finding true happiness inside themselves and being cognizant that looking for it in marriage is as logical as searching for "The Holy Grail" or "El Dorado".


----------



## NobodySpecial

Tall Average Guy said:


> I don't know that it necessarily all about valuing them for their wallet (though that is part of it), so much as using their wallet as a proxy for the type of man that they want. A friend of mine's sister went to an Ivy League school and had a great job. She was insistent that her husband be at least her equal in education, career and earnings. She did not want to support a man monetarily. My friend (who just got married) said this is not uncommon when he was in the dating world.
> 
> Certainly, she is well within her rights to seek what she wants. But it will make things difficult if she narrows her requirements so much. It also makes me wonder what happens if she surpasses him in career, or he loses his job.


I'm sorry. I think that is shallow and dumb. Where is the room for love?


----------



## EleGirl

Buddy400 said:


> I believe this is the fundamental problem facing modern women.
> 
> It used to be that one of the major factors that made particular men attractive to women was his potential to support her and her children. In the modern world this is no longer necessary (upper class* women can now make as much money as upper class men and lower class men can no longer make more money than lower class women).
> 
> If women continue to look for men that are more successful than themselves, that's going to be an increasingly small pool of prospects. Unless women learn to value earnings (real or potential) less and something else (not sure what) more, they'll have trouble finding suitable marriage partners.
> 
> I think that women have a hard time respecting men that make less than them. They'll have to learn to deal with that.
> 
> * using "class" in it's economic meaning


Well, I don't get it. I don't see educated women with careers having any problem at all finding a good guy to marry. I know a lot of women who fall into this category.. the vast majority are married or in a serious relationship.

I also know a good number of women who married men who earn less than they do. They knew this going into the marriage and there does not seem to be a problem.

I know that you are wrong when you say that women have a hard time respecting men that make less than them.

Now sure, there are some women who have a problem with this. But there are also men who have a problem with women who earn more than them. Shoot there are men who feel that their wives who earns less than them are useless and contribute nothing to the marriage.

I'm sure that if we think about it long enough we can find a lot of different dynamics like that between men and women. 

But none of them can be used to paint all, or most, of the people of any one gender.


----------



## morituri

EleGirl said:


> JLD is entitled to her opinions and to voice them here, just as everyone else is. There is no one TAM view point on marriage.


Where is it written that we do not want her opinion? The last time I checked, this is forum is not our property. She has as much right as all of us here. Besides it's always great to have someone we can compare mental diarrhea with. :grin2:>


----------



## always_alone

EllisRedding said:


> I agree with that, but that is where I don't follow jld. To quote Icey "However, when the given advice is to treat women as children incapable of mature responsibilities and to require the man to be a stoic source of all agency and responsibility." That is how jld's advice comes across (to me at least). So on one hand you have a woman who can now support themselves, is independent, etc..., so for a guy to stay in the game they need to treat that same woman as incapable, emotionally unstable, etc...? I am sure we can agree to disagree with this, but it just doesn't add up.


Anyone who is characterizing jld as a child, or immature, or incapable of responsibility is absolutely misinterpreting who she is and what she is capable of. 

I don't agree with everything she says and does either, but she is fully adult and absolutely capable.

And, I think she's being quite honest when she says that she is trying to empower men by showing them that there are more options open to them than simply casting blame at women for their (our) deficiencies. 

I mean, we can hurl abuse at the author of the OP article, or hurl that same abuse at our spouses. Or we can simply seethe in resentment at their deficiencies, and feel sorry for how terribly they've treated us. Or threaten to leave them. Or actually leave them.

Or we can put our egos aside for a moment and try something different.


----------



## EleGirl

morituri said:


> Good for them. It means that they are finding true happiness inside themselves and being cognizant that looking for it in marriage is as logical as searching for "The Holy Grail" or "El Dorado".


Not being married does not mean that a person does not have a good strong, love relationship. It does not mean that they are finding happiness within themselves. They (the woman and the man) might just have chosen to live together and not marry.

That's happening a lot in the USA and Europe.


----------



## Buddy400

EleGirl said:


> If men are rejecting women who have degrees and a career they just might want to reconsider. Marriages in which the woman is over 25 and has a college degree have the lowest divorce rate.


I don't think men are rejecting women who have degrees and a career, I think women are rejecting men who make have less education or make less money than them.


----------



## Fozzy

EleGirl said:


> If men are rejecting women who have degrees and a career they just might want to reconsider. Marriages in which the woman is over 25 and has a college degree have the lowest divorce rate.


Because they can now afford the best lawyers 

>


----------



## always_alone

EleGirl said:


> Well, I don't get it. I don't see educated women with careers having any problem at all finding a good guy to marry. I know a lot of women who fall into this category.. the vast majority are married or in a serious relationship.


This is always the go-to, though. Just like it's important to make sure the blogger knows she's destined for divorce, doesn't deserve a man, will drive him to cheat (even though it's *not* okay for her to offer a hall pass), the necessary response to a woman suggesting that women have lots of choices in the dating world is to threaten them with a life of single loneliness because they are too greedy with their impossible standards.


----------



## EleGirl

Buddy400 said:


> I don't think men are rejecting women who have degrees and a career, I think women are rejecting men who make have less education or make less money than them.


About 40% of married women earn more than their husbands. That number goes up every year.


----------



## morituri

EleGirl said:


> Not being married does not mean that a person does not have a good strong, love relationship. It does not mean that they are finding happiness within themselves. They (the woman and the man) might just have chosen to live together and not marry.
> 
> That's happening a lot in the USA and Europe.


True but you can't deny that there are many people all over the world that see marriage as the kingdom of happiness. You and all of us here, know better. Don't we?


----------



## EleGirl

always_alone said:


> This is always the go-to, though. Just like it's important to make sure the blogger knows she's destined for divorce, doesn't deserve a man, will drive him to cheat (even though it's *not* okay for her to offer a hall pass), the necessary response to a woman suggesting that women have lots of choices in the dating world is to threaten them with a life of single loneliness because they are too greedy with their impossible standards.


I agree. The go-to seems to be to constantly remind women that we have lower "market value", that men don't want to marry any more, that men never needed women.. and on and on.


----------



## morituri

EleGirl said:


> I agree. The go-to seems to be to constantly remind women that we have lower "market value", that men don't want to marry any more, that men never needed women.. and on and on.


Can you point to a post(s) that support this statement?


----------



## Tall Average Guy

EleGirl said:


> Well, I don't get it. I don't see educated women with careers having any problem at all finding a good guy to marry. I know a lot of women who fall into this category.. the vast majority are married or in a serious relationship.


Based on my admittedly anecdotal sample, more seem to be. Because they are not (for whatever reason) putting money and career to the side to look at other things. 

It should give them more freedom in selecting a mate. Unfortunately for them, they appear locked into to out dated customs. It is by no means a majority, but still a surprising number (based on those I have discussed this with).


----------



## EleGirl

morituri said:


> EleGirl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not being married does not mean that a person does not have a good strong, love relationship. It does not mean that they are finding happiness within themselves. They (the woman and the man) might just have chosen to live together and not marry.
> 
> That's happening a lot in the USA and Europe.
> 
> 
> 
> True but you can't deny that there are many people all over the world that see marriage as the kingdom of happiness. You and all of us here, know better. Don't we?
Click to expand...

Some marriages fail. More often they do not.

I would not use TAM to come up with my outlook on marriage. Not anymore than I would use a hospital to determine the health of all people.


----------



## morituri

EleGirl said:


> Some marriages fail. *More often they do not*.


Many marriages may be intact, but it does not mean that a significant number of them are not failures. 



> I would not use TAM to come up with my outlook on marriage. Not anymore than I would use a hospital to determine the health of all people.


But you do seem to use TAM to come up with the statement below:



EleGirl said:


> I agree. The go-to seems to be to constantly remind women that we have lower "market value", that men don't want to marry any more, that men never needed women.. and on and on.


----------



## Tall Average Guy

EleGirl said:


> I agree. The go-to seems to be to constantly remind women that we have lower "market value", that men don't want to marry any more, that men never needed women.. and on and on.


Actually, my point was that despite more choices, some seem to be artificially limiting themselves. Not sure how that equates to what you and AA posted.not addressing a point. I am curious why you jumped on that bandwagon.


----------



## EleGirl

Tall Average Guy said:


> Based on my admittedly anecdotal sample, more seem to be. Because they are not (for whatever reason) putting money and career to the side to look at other things.


If 40% of women earn more than their husbands, then 60% earn AS MUCH or less. 

Those numbers however do not tell us how much a man's income played into a woman agreeing to marry him.

For example, if a woman chose to only marry a man who earns less than she, she'd be limiting the pool of men she could marry. Why? Because typically men earn more than women.

There are a lot, a whole lot, of married people who have a very low income. Go to Walmart any day of the week. I would hardly call the wives gold diggers.



Tall Average Guy said:


> It should give them more freedom in selecting a mate. Unfortunately for them, they appear locked into to out dated customs. It is by no means a majority, but still a surprising number (based on those I have discussed this with).


I know a lot of young men who are looking for women who have the same education level and who earn as much or more than they. I think these things even out.

Since I don't know any woman who has a at least one college degree, a career and a good income who has any trouble finding a man for a long term relationship if that is what they want.

I'm sure that there is some small subset of women who might be looking for men based on an unrealistic idea of marrying up (where up means money). But it's hardly even a large percentage of women.


----------



## EleGirl

Tall Average Guy said:


> Actually, my point was that despite more choices, some seem to be artificially limiting themselves. Not sure how that equates to what you and AA posted.not addressing a point. I am curious why you jumped on that bandwagon.


In case you have not noticed, I post on TAM all the time when I feel like posting.

For example, right now I'm working on an ICD for a product and need a break. It was either go out in the hot sun and pull up the 3 ft weeds in by back yard or post on TAM. TAM seemed like a better idea at this time.


----------



## morituri

EleGirl said:


> In case you have not noticed, I post on TAM all the time when I feel like posting.
> 
> For example, right now I'm working on an ICD for a product and need a break. It was either go out in the hot sun and pull up the 3 ft weeds in by back yard or post on TAM. TAM seemed like a better idea at this time.


Like Jello, there is always room for TAM. :grin2:


----------



## Tall Average Guy

EleGirl said:


> In case you have not noticed, I post on TAM all the time when I feel like posting.
> 
> For example, right now I'm working on an ICD for a product and need a break. It was either go out in the hot sun and pull up the 3 ft weeds in by back yard or post on TAM. TAM seemed like a better idea at this time.


I have no issue with you posting. The bandwagon I was referring to was to equate any commentary on women with hating them. You usually don't jump on that, so I was surprised you did this time.

Oh well.


----------



## Tall Average Guy

EleGirl said:


> I'm sure that there is some small subset of women who might be looking for men based on an unrealistic idea of marrying up (where up means money). But it's hardly even a large percentage of women.


Based on the folks I have talked to, it is a big number than I would have expected.

But since even raising this issue is akin to saying women have lower value then men, but will die alone if they have standards, I will just note that our samples are different and leave it at that.


----------



## EleGirl

morituri said:


> I would not use TAM to come up with my outlook on marriage. Not anymore than I would use a hospital to determine the health of all people.
> 
> 
> 
> Many marriages may be intact, but it does not mean that a significant number of them are not failures.
Click to expand...

I think that I’ll leave it up to the people in the marriages to decide whether or not their marriage is a failure and/or if they are content. Since divorce is easy to get, it’s reasonable to assume that the marriages that are together for years are as successful for that person (or for that couple). 



morituri said:


> But you do seem to use TAM to come up with the statement below: :


The first quote above and the below quote have nothing to do with each other. Trying to tie them together is basically trying to create a strawman argument.



EleGirl said:


> I agree. The go-to seems to be to constantly remind women that we have lower "market value", that men don't want to marry any more, that men never needed women.. and on and on.


Yes, on TAM there is a very heavy presence of the red pill philosophy which is based on devaluing women and constantly reminding women that we have diminishing value. What is the most suggested book here on TAM by men? MMSLP which does exactly these things.


----------



## EleGirl

Tall Average Guy said:


> I have no issue with you posting. The bandwagon I was referring to was to equate any commentary on women with hating them. You usually don't jump on that, so I was surprised you did this time.
> 
> Oh well.


I did not equate any commentary on women to be hating them.

If that is your interpretation then, well don't know what to say.


----------



## EleGirl

Tall Average Guy said:


> Actually, my point was that despite more choices, some seem to be artificially limiting themselves. Not sure how that equates to what you and AA posted.not addressing a point. I am curious why you jumped on that bandwagon.


Yes, a woman who decides that she will only marry a man who makes $x more than her, or who has $x in assets might be setting artificial limits.


Likewise, a guy who decides that he will only marry a woman who is a 10, is putting artificial limits.

I suppose both would come down to earth at some point.


----------



## Tall Average Guy

EleGirl said:


> I did not equate any commentary on women to be hating them.
> 
> If that is your interpretation then, well don't know what to say.


Well, AA pretty much did and you jumped on in agreement. So I don't think my interpretation is unreasonable.


----------



## Buddy400

EleGirl said:


> Well, I don't get it. I don't see educated women with careers having any problem at all finding a good guy to marry. I know a lot of women who fall into this category.. the vast majority are married or in a serious relationship.


This is known as the "Where Have all the Good Guys Gone" meme. I didn't invent it I haven't had any personal experience with it. I suspected that because many people have written about it that it might be a real thing.

But, you haven't seen it, so I guess it's not happening.

I stand corrected.


----------



## EleGirl

EllisRedding said:


> Um, ok on the bolded. Don't recall ever saying JLD couldn't voice her opinion, and don't believe anyone here has said their POV is the official TAM POV


I'm sorry. That part of my post was a comment on posts by another poster. It should not have been tagged onto my post to you. :frown2:


----------



## Buddy400

EleGirl said:


> I agree. The go-to seems to be to constantly remind women that we have lower "market value", that men don't want to marry any more, that men never needed women.. and on and on.


Where did this come from? 

A_A just pulled it out of thin air (apparently based on something that I most certainly did not say).

And then you jump on it when no one on tis thread even said it.


----------



## Cosmos

> By EleGirl
> I agree. The go-to seems to be to constantly remind women that we have lower "market value", that men don't want to marry any more, that men never needed women.. and on and on.





morituri said:


> Can you point to a post(s) that support this statement?


Right here:- http://talkaboutmarriage.com/mens-c...ong-i-cant-even-process-109.html#post13109138


What I find particularly obnoxious is:-



> And if we want to be completely blunt; men have never needed women. Well, at least not wives.
> 
> Short of having children and mothers, wives are not necessary.


This thread has now become so inane and devoid of reason that it's really not worth posting in it.


----------



## EllisRedding

Cosmos said:


> Right here:- http://talkaboutmarriage.com/mens-c...ong-i-cant-even-process-109.html#post13109138
> 
> 
> What I find particularly obnoxious is:-


In all fairness I believe that quote was simply in response to the comment that the "modern" woman would not have a need for a man. In reality, do men and women need each other, I guess not aside from procreation. Do they want each other, well that is a different story.


----------



## always_alone

Tall Average Guy said:


> Well, AA pretty much did and you jumped on in agreement. So I don't think my interpretation is unreasonable.


When? Seriously. When?


----------



## Cosmos

EllisRedding said:


> In all fairness I believe that quote was simply in response to the comment that the "modern" woman would not have a need for a man. In reality, do men and women need each other, I guess not aside from procreation. Do they want each other, well that is a different story.


If I recall, it was in response to JLD saying that her daughter has a career of her own and won't _need _a man to take care of her. This was in response to Icey moreorless saying that women expect to be treated and cared for like children etc.


----------



## EleGirl

morituri said:


> Can you point to a post(s) that support this statement?


Let's see... 


> And if we want to be completely blunt; men have never needed women. Well, at least not wives.
> 
> Short of having children and mothers, wives are not necessary.


I guess we have been but into our place… we have no value to men… got it.


> The ironic thing is that women in your daughter's position are finding it increasingly difficult to marry their "ideal men" because they are still looking to "marry up."





> If women continue to look for men that are more successful than themselves, that's going to be an increasingly small pool of prospects. Unless women learn to value earnings (real or potential) less and something else (not sure what) more, they'll have trouble finding suitable marriage partners.


The above statements say that educated women (a blanket statement) who make a good living put income/money ahead of all other things… they are gold diggers. This is a huge put-down/insult of a lot of women. It’s a gross insult. Most of the women who post here on TAM fall in that group. And people are trying to tell us how we, and the women we know, value men mostly for money. That we are that shallow. That our daughters are also that shallow.

Even if the above quote is not talking about all educated women who make a good living, it is being said there that these women are doing this in droves.

While there may be a lot of media hype on this topic, that’s what it is, hype. Just like the hype that men are not marrying women because American women are …… (fill in list of insults).

For people ages 25 and older, here is the percentage of never married: Men - 23% Women - 17%

17% of women never marry. Clearly not all of those women are the awful, gold digging educated women with unrealistic expectation about the income of the man they are looking to marry. Clearly there are not droves of educated women who earn a good income who cannot find a husband.

That is just a few posts on the last few pages of this thread. If you want I can pull up a lot more on other threads on TAM.


----------



## EleGirl

EllisRedding said:


> In all fairness I believe that quote was simply in response to the comment that the "modern" woman would not have a need for a man. In reality, do men and women need each other, I guess not aside from procreation. Do they want each other, well that is a different story.


It was in reply to the following quote.



jld said:


> Icey, we are living in a time when women are achieving high levels of economic independence. My own daughter is halfway through a chemical engineering degree, with some pretty impressive achievements. *She is not going to need a man. The only kind of man she is going to want, or accept, is a highly intelligent, mature, responsible man*.


In the past, women had no way to support themselves. So they needed a man for this purpose.

The point that JLD was making is that her daughter will not need a man who supports her or to give her legal legitimacy as it was in the past. She will most likely look at him as a lot more than a wallet. 

JLD thinks that her daughter will not worry about the man’s income but instead look for “a highly intelligent, mature, responsible man.”

Why would a man be offended by that? Why would it be offensive that a woman does not need for his money. She can support herself. She will want him for the wonderful guy that he is.

But in reply were knee jerk posts saying that women basically have no value to men and that educated women with a good income cannot find men to marry because they are gold diggers.


----------



## ocotillo

Personal said:


> On the other hand I do find it funny.


Why?

(And I don't mean that flippantly. Lots of things are humorous or not depending upon the context.)


----------



## Fozzy

Oh yeah? Well I...use Degree deodorant...sometimes.


----------



## morituri

Perhaps a cleanup of the threadjack posts might not be such a bad idea.


----------



## Cosmos

Personal said:


> My wife also has a STEM degree and is fluent in Italian and English, whereas *I'm just an uneducated heathen with an extremely high IQ.*
> 
> Our youngest child who turns 12 next month is a high achieving student with a particular talent for mathematics and music. My wife and I would like to see her undertake a science or engineering tertiary education.


Intelligence is a highly attractive attribute, Personal.


----------



## morituri

Cosmos said:


> Intelligence is a highly attractive attribute, Personal. I've known some supposedly well educated people in my time, who also happen to be very stupid


Very true but sadly it goes out the window when a person falls in love.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

> *techmom said*: *Men on TAM love to state that sex= love, I think that is bs.*


 I am no longer following this thread.. just thought I'd give a thought or 2 on the above.. since I seen it quoted pages back...... my husband is a member here , though he rarely posts.. he is most certainly a man who equates *Sex with Love*, always has... 

I do feel it's on the rarer side in men...especially when they are younger & dealing with their raging hormones...they can't seem to help themselves & just want to stick it in something... 

When I met my husband, I could tell he was different from some of the guys aiming for my pants but wasn't much else there... he cared to spend time to get to know me... he sought the emotional...he would say he gets more from pleasing me than getting his own.. I have never experienced sex without feeling deeply loved.... 

I'm sure this plays into my strong feelings on the subject, and why I find the way this wife spoke to her husband Just awful, deeply hurtful ...*because WE could never do that*...(Yes I know.. I can't relate - so I should have never bothered posting anyway)...

I just wanted to point this out.. it's not always







... Depends on the man you are with, some are very sentimental & giving...

I seriously doubt this woman's husband is anything like mine anyway...

It saves an awful lot of ills when sex & love go hand in hand though... when pleasing your Lover UPs something in ourselves ..of course it helps when you're both just a little addicted to orgasms ... it just never gets old... instead of feeling like it's just another burden or chore..


----------



## Fozzy

morituri said:


> Perhaps a cleanup of the threadjack posts might not be such a bad idea.


My thread. I can jack it if I want. Or delete it if it's causing you consternation.


----------



## jld

SA, I think it is good you posted your thoughts. We need everyone's contributions here. That is how we can grow, from considering a diversity of opinions. 

And if we all saw things the same way, the threads would be boring! We can't have that! :laugh:


----------



## jld

Fozzy said:


> My thread. I can jack it if I want. Or delete it if it's causing you consternation.


I hope you won't delete it, Fozzy. A lot of time and energy has gone into this thread.


----------



## morituri

Fozzy said:


> My thread. I can jack it if I want. Or delete it if it's causing you consternation.


So below the gods (mods) you are the demigod of this thread. :grin2:


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Personal said:


> I hope it always remains thus.
> 
> For me sex alone is not enough to express love.
> 
> Love is far greater than just sex alone.
> 
> Although sex can be a component of love, sex itself is not love.


I really don't understand your post Personal.. Just because Sex and love go hand in hand with me in no way = that it's the only thing WE need... of course not !! Every emotional need Listed in His Needs / Her Needs is a part of it also...very much so... 

This is how we both look upon sex... which I have posted here many times... 



> *3. ** Romantic View *~
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "save yourself for the one, your beloved"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [/URL]
> Sex should be reserved for those who are deeply in love with the strings of emotional attachment/commitment. Loveless sex is not appropriate, People should be sexually faithful as long as love lasts. Those who hold the romantic view often talk in terms of sex as sacred, as a Gift to be preserved & given to someone of profound significance.
> 
> Romantic view holds that sex should be connected with a thirst for deep psychological & bodily knowledge, Mutually reciprocated gift-giving & intimacy are it's purpose.
> 
> The feeling of being in love is a feeling that one’s beloved is an irreplaceable soul mate.
> 
> Complications arise, however, when romantic feelings do not last or when someone who has made a commitment to sexual exclusivity finds himself or herself in love with someone else.
> 
> The romantic view emphasizes interpersonal intimacy, but sees the duration of commitment as contingent. Commitment lasts for as long as romantic love lasts. But commitment is a must. A one-time encounter with a stranger may be consensual -but it would not be appropriate for those who hold the Romantic view.


I am well aware the vast majority of posters here & in this world do not require or care about what is listed in this view.. Sex is "JUST SEX" for many..and probably true for this married couple.. again.. why I have wasted my time with my silly contributions on this thread.. 

But thank you anyway.. JLD..


----------



## Buddy400

EleGirl said:


> Yes, a woman who decides that she will only marry a man who makes $x more than her, or who has $x in assets might be setting artificial limits.
> 
> 
> Likewise, a guy who decides that he will only marry a woman who is a 10, is putting artificial limits.
> 
> I suppose both would come down to earth at some point.


Quite true.

However, men facing a shortage of potential mates if they are only willing to marry a 10 is not a new phenomena.

Women facing a shortage of potential mates who make $x more than her IS a relatively new development and it is becoming more significant with each passing year.

The reason I mentioned this is that it's a change, not to knock down women with respect to men. For those women who might have this restriction (or attraction factor, whatever), it's going to be (is?) a problem.


----------



## Buddy400

morituri said:


> Perhaps a cleanup of the threadjack posts might not be such a bad idea.


I was under the impression that the entire thread was now an official threadjack.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Buddy400 said:


> Quite true.
> 
> However, men facing a shortage of potential mates if they are only willing to marry a 10 is not a new phenomena.
> 
> *Women facing a shortage of potential mates who make $x more than her IS a relatively new development and it is becoming more significant with each passing year.
> *
> The reason I mentioned this is that it's a change, not to knock down women with respect to men. For those women who might have this restriction (or attraction factor, whatever), it's going to be (is?) a problem.


IT IS significant.. from what I have seen.. the majority of women want to marry UP success/ status wise...never forget the conversation I had with husbands niece on Christmas a few yrs back...she's going to school to be a VET... she talked down about men who made less than her.... in a really nasty way.. how she didn't go to school all this time to marry some loser who didn't work as hard as her or pay his dues...she isn't going to carry him...

Her uncle is just a blue collar worker so ya know.... he wouldn't have been good enough for her either.. I remember thinking to myself back then.. "so this is how some of them REALLY feel"... interesting.. 

Beings I never made big money.. no college education here, nothing to brag about .... I was hardly particular in this area....I suppose if I had as much debt as his niece is going to have.. maybe I'd feel similar.. does it change women.... I believe it does...


----------



## jld

I am going to ask my daughter about her feelings on how much the man should earn relative to her. She is the leader in most of the groups she's in; people respect her. She has had many young men ask her out, but only accepted a lunch date with one, and even then insisted on paying for herself.

She has mentioned that her ideal would be to marry a native French speaker, as she wants her children to speak French. If she does not, that part of her heritage is likely to be lost. It is just not the same if the person is not a native speaker.

I would honestly be surprised if she did not marry someone with at least as much education as herself. She is a very smart girl. She needs, at the very least, an equal in this area.
_Posted via Mobile Device_
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Buddy400

always_alone said:


> When? Seriously. When?


Here

This is my original post



Buddy400 said:


> I believe this is the fundamental problem facing modern women.
> 
> It used to be that one of the major factors that made particular men attractive to women was his potential to support her and her children. In the modern world this is no longer necessary (upper class* women can now make as much money as upper class men and lower class men can no longer make more money than lower class women).
> 
> If women continue to look for men that are more successful than themselves, that's going to be an increasingly small pool of prospects. Unless women learn to value earnings (real or potential) less and something else (not sure what) more, they'll have trouble finding suitable marriage partners.
> 
> I think that women have a hard time respecting men that make less than them. They'll have to learn to deal with that.
> 
> * using "class" in it's economic meaning


Here's Elegirl's response



EleGirl said:


> Well, I don't get it. I don't see educated women with careers having any problem at all finding a good guy to marry. I know a lot of women who fall into this category.. the vast majority are married or in a serious relationship.
> 
> I also know a good number of women who married men who earn less than they do. They knew this going into the marriage and there does not seem to be a problem.
> 
> I know that you are wrong when you say that women have a hard time respecting men that make less than them.
> 
> Now sure, there are some women who have a problem with this. But there are also men who have a problem with women who earn more than them. Shoot there are men who feel that their wives who earns less than them are useless and contribute nothing to the marriage.
> 
> I'm sure that if we think about it long enough we can find a lot of different dynamics like that between men and women.
> 
> But none of them can be used to paint all, or most, of the people of any one gender.



Here's your comment



always_alone said:


> This is always the go-to, though. Just like it's important to make sure the blogger knows she's destined for divorce, doesn't deserve a man, will drive him to cheat (even though it's *not* okay for her to offer a hall pass), the necessary response to a woman suggesting that women have lots of choices in the dating world is to threaten them with a life of single loneliness because they are too greedy with their impossible standards.


Somehow, my comment on how women earning as much as men (and I have NO problem with this) might be affecting the dynamic of male/female relationships was turned into my threatening women "with a life of single loneliness because they are too greedy with their impossible standards". 

I think it takes a lot of paranoia to get to that from my original comment.


----------



## Tall Average Guy

always_alone said:


> When? Seriously. When?


When this particular issue was raised, your response was :



> This is always the go-to, though. Just like it's important to make sure the blogger knows she's destined for divorce, doesn't deserve a man, will drive him to cheat (even though it's *not* okay for her to offer a hall pass), the necessary response to a woman suggesting that women have lots of choices in the dating world is to threaten them with a life of single loneliness because they are too greedy with their impossible standards.


You have categorized those terms in the past as men hating women and wanting to diminish them. I assume you stance on that has not changed.


----------



## always_alone

Buddy400 said:


> Here
> 
> Somehow, my comment on how women earning as much as men (and I have NO problem with this) might be affecting the dynamic of male/female relationships was turned into my threatening women "with a life of single loneliness because they are too greedy with their impossible standards".
> 
> I think it takes a lot of paranoia to get to that from my original comment.


It wasn't just your comment that I was referring to, Buddy. There were others.

And it was pretty interesting to watch how jld's one comment about how women now have more opportunities to look after themselves, and so more choices in mating and dating quickly morphed straight into a conversation about how wives aren't important to men, how women are too choosy, and how we are all worried about "where have all the good men gone".


----------



## Lila

SimplyAmorous said:


> IT IS significant.. from what I have seen.. the majority of women want to marry UP success/ status wise...never forget the conversation I had with husbands niece on Christmas a few yrs back...she's going to school to be a VET... she talked down about men who made less than her.... in a really nasty way.. how she didn't go to school all this time to marry some loser who didn't work as hard as her or pay his dues...she isn't going to carry him...
> 
> Her uncle is just a blue collar worker so ya know.... he wouldn't have been good enough for her either.. I remember thinking to myself back then.. "so this is how some of them REALLY feel"... interesting..
> 
> Beings I never made big money.. no college education here, nothing to brag about .... I was hardly particular in this area....I suppose if I had as much debt as his niece is going to have.. maybe I'd feel similar.. does it change women.... I believe it does...


I actually see nothing wrong with your niece's expectations in a spouse. She's a well-educated, soon-to-be professional woman in a good career-field who expects the same from a partner. She values this particular quality. She's been there, done that, and wants a man who shares those experiences. What's wrong with that? 

I also don't believe she'll have a difficult time of finding the kind of man she's seeking. Her social circle is most likely made of up of other students in either the veterinary school or other medical fields. Depending on her university, she's also got access to other graduate students as well. She will probably find a mate within this group.


----------



## farsidejunky

This whole thread (I am guilty of contributing as well) has morphed into a macro analysis of men and women, and who is the bigger victim in relationship interactions.

The problem is a micro (or situational) problem, that has been thoroughly explored.

Is there anything positive coming from this discussion any more?


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Lila said:


> I actually see nothing wrong with your niece's expectations in a spouse. She's a well-educated, soon-to-be professional woman in a good career-field who expects the same from a partner. She values this particular quality. She's been there, done that, and wants a man who shares those experiences. What's wrong with that?
> 
> I also don't believe she'll have a difficult time of finding the kind of man she's seeking. Her social circle is most likely made of up of other students in either the veterinary school or other medical fields. Depending on her university, she's also got access to other graduate students as well. She will probably find a mate within this group.


From what I have seen of her.. she is a party girl.. drinking on weekends.. hook ups keep her going.. and marriage.. laughable.. she's not interested.. the way she talks about men...she hasn't found any who are worth it yet... I can't even recall one boyfriend she has had steady and she is like 28 yrs old now.. I see her every Holiday ....Yes.. it's her life.. her choices.. She's brilliant.. very intelligent.. HOT ... all of that.. 

I cant relate to her lifestyle at all.. I am surely Lowly in comparison to her.. having not had a career and wanted a family very badly..


----------



## ocotillo

Personal said:


> Although sex can be a component of love, sex itself is not love.


I don't think the intent of equating sex with love is to claim that the two are identical equivalents.

One of the comments left in response to the article that struck a chord with me observed that the author's vision of a future in the absence of romantic love was not materially different than a divorce that has ended amicably. --Two people who are still friends with a common interest in the children.

In my own (Admittedly limited) experience, that is exactly what happened. My wife had absolutely zero interest in sex and I didn't want it under those circumstances, so we didn't do it at all. 

Years past. Eventually all the other things that make a marriage pleasurable and worthwhile faded away too. Flowers, dancing, date nights, gifts, holding hands, anniversaries, reading out loud together, watching the moon rise, discussing dreams, hopes and convictions. All gone.

It's not that we didn't love each other. It was a familial love though. Sterile and mild in comparison to what we had. --Like giving up French cuisine and having oatmeal for dinner the rest of your life. 

Both of us look back on that as a waste today.


----------



## always_alone

Tall Average Guy said:


> When this particular issue was raised, your response was :
> 
> 
> You have categorized those terms in the past as men hating women and wanting to diminish them. I assume you stance on that has not changed.


Observing a particular pattern of response is not quite the same as saying that any commentary about women is invalid.

And I still find it quite interesting that a single comment about women having choice suddenly makes this a thread about why women don't actually have all those choices they think they do.


----------



## Marduk

This conversation about what sex and love is reminds me of this quote by William Gibson:
"Time is money, but also money is money."


----------



## always_alone

ocotillo said:


> I don't think the intent of equating sex with love is to claim that the two are identical equivalents.
> 
> One of the comments left in response to the article that struck a chord with me observed that the author's vision of a future in the absence of romantic love was not materially different than a divorce that has ended amicably. --Two people who are still friends with a common interest in the children.
> 
> In my own (Admittedly limited) experience, that is exactly what happened. My wife had absolutely zero interest in sex and I didn't want it under those circumstances, so we didn't do it at all.
> 
> Years past. Eventually all the other things that make a marriage pleasurable and worthwhile faded away too. Flowers, dancing, date nights, gifts, holding hands, anniversaries, reading out loud together, watching the moon rise, discussing dreams, hopes and convictions. All gone.
> 
> It's not that we didn't love each other. It was a familial love though. Sterile and mild in comparison to what we had. --Like giving up French cuisine and having oatmeal for dinner the rest of your life.
> 
> Both of us look back on that as a waste today.


That's a sad story, ocotillo. But now you know it, and there is still time, yes?


----------



## Tall Average Guy

always_alone said:


> Observing a particular pattern of response is not quite the same as saying that any commentary about women is invalid.


Actually, it is an attempt to invalidate the commentary. You likened the commentary to hating women. That allows you to disregarding the commentary.



> And I still find it quite interesting that a single comment about women having choice suddenly makes this a thread about why women don't actually have all those choices they think they do.


I don't see it as making the thread about that. What I do see is a discussion over issues that face both sexes as things changes and old customs face new challenges. But since your prism is through man's dislike of women, even that seems to bother you.


----------



## always_alone

ocotillo said:


> I don't think the intent of equating sex with love is to claim that the two are identical equivalents.


Yes, I agree. Love is definitely a broader concept than sex, so while we might (might!) want to say sex is love, we wouldn't turn that around and say love is sex.

And clearly for some sex is about love, about how they feel about a particular person. And sam even narrowed it down further, saying he doesn't even have drive that isn't tied to that particular person and connection, which I found interesting. 

But I'm inclined to think that the variance in how closely associated sex is with love is pretty huge. In my world, I've always had drive, even if I had no-one in my life. And I think this is pretty common??

At any rate, it's one of the reasons why I think that sex isn't love. If I can have a drive where there is no one to aim towards, or where I haven't even gotten to know the person yet, how can that be love?


----------



## Icey181

EleGirl said:


> Most of the women I know are in her "daughter's position". None of them have had a problem finding that they consider the "idea man" to marry. Most are in good, long term marriages.


Only four of the highly educated women I know of in your daughter's position (over 30 in my program) are married or soon to be married.

And one of them is my wife.



EleGirl said:


> If men are rejecting women who have degrees and a career they just might want to reconsider. Marriages in which the woman is over 25 and has a college degree have the lowest divorce rate.


Actually, you have that backwards.

In a world in which there are only 77 male graduate degrees conferred for every 100 female ones, women who demand minimally _equal_ educational and achievement status from their partners are finding it increasingly difficult to find those men.

For every one married graduate-level female I know there are literally a dozen lonely women who are single and yet still talk about how their ideal man needs to be her intellectual equal and have a professional career.

You cannot match 77 with 100…

Unless 23% of the graduate female population becomes suddenly lesbian, we are going to have to deal with those annoying female-centric "Where have all the good men gone," articles for a few more years.


----------



## Icey181

always_alone said:


> It wasn't just your comment that I was referring to, Buddy. There were others.
> 
> And it was pretty interesting to watch how jld's one comment about how women now have more opportunities to look after themselves, and so more choices in mating and dating quickly morphed straight into a conversation about how wives aren't important to men, how women are too choosy, and how we are all worried about "where have all the good men gone".


Actually, JLD attempted to peddle some socio-cultural theory that men are increasingly useless to women and therefore must learn to cater to them if they have dreams of LTRs _with women_.

The point, as is mentioned quite often here on TAM, is that men and women do not actually need each other.

And remember, we have not seen dozens upon dozens of articles in the last 5 years of men complaining that they cannot find "Good Women."

Tons of articles talking about how modern men are immature boys because they refuse to work and sacrifice for women?

Yeah, seen a few of those here abouts.


----------



## always_alone

Tall Average Guy said:


> Actually, it is an attempt to invalidate the commentary. You likened the commentary to hating women. That allows you to disregarding the commentary.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see it as making the thread about that. What I do see is a discussion over issues that face both sexes as things changes and old customs face new challenges. But since your prism is through man's dislike of women, even that seems to bother you.


Invalidate the commentary? Perhaps, that's one way of looking at it. I certainly do see it as recurring pattern: 

Woman blogger writes something about not liking sex and is immediately told how destructive and selfish she is, destined for divorce, and ruin. Woman posts comments about women having lots of choices, and immediately it's about how women don't have these choices.

Is it a discussion about facing new challenges? Maybe. At the very least, it isn't about thrashing jld anymore.


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> Invalidate the commentary? Perhaps, that's one way of looking at it. I certainly do see it as recurring pattern:
> 
> *Woman blogger writes something about not liking sex* and is immediately told how destructive and selfish she is, destined for divorce, and ruin. Woman posts comments about women having lots of choices, and immediately it's about how women don't have these choices.
> 
> Is it a discussion about facing new challenges? Maybe. At the very least, it isn't about thrashing jld anymore.


Except that wasn't what was said at all. At least by me.

Why do you keep trying to make it about that, A_A?


----------



## Icey181

SimplyAmorous said:


> From what I have seen of her.. she is a party girl.. drinking on weekends.. hook ups keep her going.. and marriage.. laughable.. she's not interested.. the way she talks about men...she hasn't found any who are worth it yet... I can't even recall one boyfriend she has had steady and she is like 28 yrs old now.. I see her every Holiday ....Yes.. it's her life.. her choices.. She's brilliant.. very intelligent.. HOT ... all of that..
> 
> I cant relate to her lifestyle at all.. I am surely Lowly in comparison to her.. having not had a career and wanted a family very badly..


Not to thread derail…but the more time I spend on TAM the more those crazier ideas of the angry Red Pill boys keep popping up, just without the labels.

The reality, unlike what Lila is claiming, is that given her status and social circle it is actually _less_ likely she will find a man that fits her criteria because, bold faced fact, *there are simply less men than women who match that criteria*.

She needs to get lucky with her slice of American Academia to find a man who both fits into her heightened criteria _and_ does not mind the fact that she has, shall we say, "played around," throughout her 20s.

As of 2014 approximately 40% of college educated women were married to men who lacked degrees.

You cannot dump tens of millions of dollars into getting girls into education and catering educational practices to their needs for over a decade and not see a concomitant decline in male educational participation and achievement.


----------



## Buddy400

EleGirl said:


> Let's see...
> 
> I guess we have been but into our place… we have no value to men… got it.
> 
> The above statements say that educated women (a blanket statement) who make a good living put income/money ahead of all other things… they are gold diggers. This is a huge put-down/insult of a lot of women. It’s a gross insult. Most of the women who post here on TAM fall in that group. And people are trying to tell us how we, and the women we know, value men mostly for money. That we are that shallow. That our daughters are also that shallow.
> 
> Even if the above quote is not talking about all educated women who make a good living, it is being said there that these women are doing this in droves.


It takes an incredible amount of defensiveness to get the above from the following:



Icey181 said:


> The ironic thing is that women in your daughter's position are finding it increasingly difficult to marry their "ideal men" because they are still looking to "marry up."


and



Buddy400 said:


> If women continue to look for men that are more successful than themselves, that's going to be an increasingly small pool of prospects. Unless women learn to value earnings (real or potential) less and something else (not sure what) more, they'll have trouble finding suitable marriage partners.


I'll only interpret what I was talking about since I don't know what is in Icey181's mind (although I have no reason to expect that it is driven by an anti-woman bias).

In no way am I accusing women of being "shallow" for having considered a man's income potential when choosing a mate.

If fact, through the 1970's a woman would have been foolish to NOT consider it before being married. Society restricted women's ability to have a career and earn money. In that situation, with a woman being wholly dependent on her husband financially, they had little choice.

Fortunately, those days are largely behind us and women can choose men using the same advanced criteria men have always used (nice butts?). 

However, just because the reality has changed doesn't mean that the culture has changed at the same speed. To whatever degree some women still see income potential as an important factor in a male, this will limit their pool of available mates. It's a case of cultural values not changing fast enough to keep up with reality. This is not wholly imagined, jld's daughter would require a mate of equal or greater accomplishments than herself. It is a real thing with some high achieving women having a hard time respecting their lower achieving husbands. It seems that this could be an element of modern life that could use some discussion.

So, how this all turned me into a red pill guy that reads MMSL (never read it) and is dedicated to keeping women in their place.....


----------



## always_alone

Icey181 said:


> Actually, JLD attempted to peddle some socio-cultural theory that men are increasingly useless to women and therefore must learn to cater to them if they have dreams of LTRs _with women_.
> 
> The point, as is mentioned quite often here on TAM, is that men and women do not actually need each other.
> 
> And remember, we have not seen dozens upon dozens of articles in the last 5 years of men complaining that they cannot find "Good Women."
> 
> Tons of articles talking about how modern men are immature boys because they refuse to work and sacrifice for women?
> 
> Yeah, seen a few of those here abouts.


I see. So, just so I'm clear: am I to understand, then, that the commentary was simply a reactive backlash to the observation that women can mostly fend for themselves and don't need to marry? 

Or am I to understand that it is simply objective fact that no one needs anyone anymore. 

Hmmm. Can't be the latter, or we wouldn't have endless articles about wanting to find someone to love/marry/partner with.


----------



## Buddy400

farsidejunky said:


> This whole thread (I am guilty of contributing as well) has morphed into a macro analysis of men and women, and who is the bigger victim in relationship interactions.
> 
> The problem is a micro (or situational) problem, that has been thoroughly explored.
> 
> Is there anything positive coming from this discussion any more?


Nope


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> I see. So, just so I'm clear: am I to understand, then, that the commentary was simply a reactive backlash to the observation that women can mostly fend for themselves and don't need to marry?
> 
> Or am I to understand that it is simply objective fact that no one needs anyone anymore.
> 
> Hmmm. Can't be the latter, or we wouldn't have endless articles about wanting to find someone to love/marry/partner with.


Want does not equal need.


----------



## Icey181

always_alone said:


> Woman blogger writes something about not liking sex and is immediately told how destructive and selfish she is, destined for divorce, and ruin. Woman posts comments about women having lots of choices, and immediately it's about how women don't have these choices.


Did you actually read the original article? Because that is not what was written, at all.

Woman blogger writes something about not caring that her libido is suddenly gone and decides to emotionally castrate her husband with the threat that he either backs off or needs to find a fvck buddy while demanding he remain in a long-term intimacy-starved marriage because she has life pressures and does not think her and her husband's romantic life is a priority worth working on anymore.

And we have a handful of people who want to empathize with her _because she is a woman_.

She has legitimate resentments.

That does not change that what she did demonstrated a lack of empathy for her husband's needs nor represented a healthy means of dealing with her problems.

Or that such a blog is absolutely horrific advice for anyone in the same situation, which happily, almost all of the commentators saw and mentioned immediately.


----------



## always_alone

marduk said:


> Except that wasn't what was said at all. At least by me.
> 
> Why do you keep trying to make it about that, A_A?


I'm being accused of saying that any commentary about women is invalid and a sure sign of hatred of women, and of viewing everything as men hating women, and a couple of other things.

I'm not trying to make it about anything, I'm just trying to explain where I'm coming from.

But you're right that I'm probably wasting my time.


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> I'm being accused of saying that any commentary about women is invalid and a sure sign of hatred of women, and of viewing everything as men hating women, and a couple of other things.
> 
> I'm not trying to make it about anything, I'm just trying to explain where I'm coming from.
> 
> But you're right that I'm probably wasting my time.


OK. All fine and good I'm sure.

But why do you keep making it about her libido? My issue isn't with her libido.

My issue is what she did with her not having one. 

And what I'm curious about is why that particular issue -- a lack of libido and the desperation and frustration that it causes in some woman -- is a central fixture for you.


----------



## Icey181

always_alone said:


> I see. So, just so I'm clear: am I to understand, then, that the commentary was simply a reactive backlash to the observation that women can mostly fend for themselves and don't need to marry?


Women have been achieving financial independence from men since the mid 1830s with the penetration of complex market economies into the rural areas of almost every single state in the Union.

Pretending that the modern women is somehow a special and unique historical phenomenon hitherto unheard called the "Newly Independent Woman" is foolish.



always_alone said:


> Or am I to understand that it is simply objective fact that no one needs anyone anymore.


Despite what the media may have told you, the Man-Wife family system of utter dependency basically never actually existed in America.

Well, maybe somewhere around ~1730-1780. 

I am not great with family history of the colonial era.

Men and women do not _need_ each other at all.

Never had.

Desire and want are not needs.



always_alone said:


> Hmmm. Can't be the latter, or we wouldn't have endless articles about wanting to find someone to love/marry/partner with.


Correction: we have endless articles *by women* complaining that men *no longer meet their standards of achievement and sacrifice*.

Stop using gender neutral phrases.


----------



## Buddy400

ocotillo said:


> I don't think the intent of equating sex with love is to claim that the two are identical equivalents.
> 
> One of the comments left in response to the article that struck a chord with me observed that the author's vision of a future in the absence of romantic love was not materially different than a divorce that has ended amicably. --Two people who are still friends with a common interest in the children.
> 
> In my own (Admittedly limited) experience, that is exactly what happened. My wife had absolutely zero interest in sex and I didn't want it under those circumstances, so we didn't do it at all.
> 
> Years past. Eventually all the other things that make a marriage pleasurable and worthwhile faded away too. Flowers, dancing, date nights, gifts, holding hands, anniversaries, reading out loud together, watching the moon rise, discussing dreams, hopes and convictions. All gone.
> 
> It's not that we didn't love each other. It was a familial love though. Sterile and mild in comparison to what we had. --Like giving up French cuisine and having oatmeal for dinner the rest of your life.
> 
> Both of us look back on that as a waste today.


Is there an official Ocotillo story on TAM? (I've looked for it)

I'm particularly interested in how you resisted the "I told you so" when the tables turned. I'd felt like you'd adapted to the new normal well but I've been sensing lately that everything might not be well in Ocotilloville.


----------



## always_alone

marduk said:


> OK. All fine and good I'm sure.
> 
> But why do you keep making it about her libido? My issue isn't with her libido.
> 
> My issue is what she did with her not having one.
> 
> And what I'm curious about is why that particular issue -- a lack of libido and the desperation and frustration that it causes in some woman -- is a central fixture for you.


What makes you think it is a central fixture for me?

As I see it, the issue is very much about her libido. Yes, I hear all of the complaints about her delivery, about her overall attitudes, about her unwillingness to outsource some of her other responsibilities. But what it all boils down to is that she said she doesn't want sex with her husband, and those who "get it" realize that she is being selfish, dooming her relationship, castrating her husband, and so on. 

While those of us who "don't get it" think that maybe she's entitled to her perspective to.


----------



## Icey181

Being entitled to legitimate resentments does not absolve her of her refusal to actually deal with said resentments or of foisting a radical and potentially marriage-ending "solution" onto her husband which, given what we know, she planned out and likely knew he would never accept.

No one is saying she lacks legitimate resentments.

What many are saying is that they do not _excuse her behavior_.


----------



## Buddy400

Lila said:


> I actually see nothing wrong with your niece's expectations in a spouse. She's a well-educated, soon-to-be professional woman in a good career-field who expects the same from a partner. She values this particular quality. She's been there, done that, and wants a man who shares those experiences. *What's wrong with that?*
> 
> I also don't believe she'll have a difficult time of finding the kind of man she's seeking. Her social circle is most likely made of up of other students in either the veterinary school or other medical fields. Depending on her university, she's also got access to other graduate students as well. She will probably find a mate within this group.


What's wrong with that? Absolutely nothing. She can want anything she likes.

Will she get it? 

If there are 77 men for every 100 women with those qualifications and half of those guys don't care about accomplishment and just want a hottie, it could be problematic.


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> What makes you think it is a central fixture for me?


Because you keep bringing it up. I kept trying to clarify, but you kept going back there anyway.


> As I see it, the issue is very much about her libido. Yes, I hear all of the complaints about her delivery, about her overall attitudes, about her unwillingness to outsource some of her other responsibilities. But what it all boils down to is that she said she doesn't want sex with her husband, and those who "get it" realize that she is being selfish, dooming her relationship, castrating her husband, and so on.
> 
> While those of us who "don't get it" think that maybe she's entitled to her perspective to.


I think she's entitled to her perspective. Just like I'm entitled to my perspective.

But again, why is it solely about her libido? What does that mean for you?


----------



## always_alone

marduk said:


> Want does not equal need.


True. But I think it closer to a need.

I mean, we just spent pages and pages discussing how important sex is, and how important those bonds are, and how cruel it is not not recognize how important those bonds are.

Sure, we're all adults who can look after ourselves. We don't *need* anyone. 

But we do. KWIM?


----------



## always_alone

Icey181 said:


> Correction: we have endless articles *by women* complaining that men *no longer meet their standards of achievement and sacrifice*.
> 
> Stop using gender neutral phrases.


Right, of course. Silly me. Only women are desperately lonely as they look to fulfill their impossible fantasies.

Good thing we're super tough and resourceful!


----------



## Lila

Buddy400 said:


> What's wrong with that? Absolutely nothing. She can want anything she likes.
> 
> Will she get it?
> 
> *If there are 77 men for every 100 women with those qualifications and half of those guys don't care about accomplishment and just want a hottie, it could be problematic.*


According to SA's last post "_She's brilliant.. very intelligent.. HOT_". Yep, she'll eventually find her partner.

ETA: Do you think she should settle for less?


----------



## morituri

Buddy400 said:


> Somehow, my comment on how women earning as much as men (and I have NO problem with this) might be affecting the dynamic of male/female relationships was turned into my threatening women "with a life of single loneliness because they are too greedy with their impossible standards".
> 
> I think it takes a lot of paranoia to get to that from my original comment.


 @Buddy400 And yet some of the female members accuse me of engaging in straw man arguments.


----------



## Icey181

always_alone said:


> Right, of course. Silly me. Only women are desperately lonely as they look to fulfill their impossible fantasies.
> 
> Good thing we're super tough and resourceful!


There really is no point in being personally offended at a socio-cultural phenomenon.

America decided to socially engineer an entire generation of young adults to see what would happen if we suddenly dumped all of our resources into developing girls.

The product is the current 18-25 year old demographic we see on college campuses across the country.

When successful women tell men they demand equality in all things…except for romantic love in which the man is supposed to be chivalrous and self-sacrificing, you create problems.

When successful women begin to talk about how they are entitled to a romantic partner who is "equal" to them, but are themselves the product of an educational system increasingly failing to produce men with that level of achievement, you create problems.

It is what it is.


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> True. But I think it closer to a need.
> 
> I mean, we just spent pages and pages discussing how important sex is, and how important those bonds are, and how cruel it is not not recognize how important those bonds are.
> 
> Sure, we're all adults who can look after ourselves. We don't *need* anyone.
> 
> But we do. KWIM?


I do and I don't.

For you, personally, is having sex with your spouse a requirement to stay married?

Why or why not?

Is loving your spouse a requirement to stay married?

Why or why not?

Sex can be an expression of love, and love can be an expression of sex.

But love is also love and sex is also sex.

I don't need either, but do really want both. But in the absence of one, I will take the other.

But I will still seek the one that's absent.


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> Right, of course. Silly me. Only women are desperately lonely as they look to fulfill their impossible fantasies.
> 
> Good thing we're super tough and resourceful!


C'mon, A_A. 

I'm sure you've seen both men and women hold impossibly high standards, end up alone, and then wonder why?

And usually I think that those impossibly high standards are some mixture of fear, anxiety, unwillingness to commit, or narcissism.

I mean, there's nothing wrong with wanting to be alone, or just date for the rest of your life. But there's everything wrong with doing one and wanting the other. I have a family member on his death bed who is still distraught that he never married or had kids -- he was too busy making money and partying to settle down. So did he really want it? I dunno, but he's sure upset about it now.

I'm not saying to lower your standards below what it is that you want. But it's another to make them impossible.

There's the old adage, from freakonomics I think, where an economist sits down with a woman who is bemoaning that she can't find a good man. So he asks her what that means.... 

Over 6' tall (80% of male population excluded)* 
Makes six figures (80% of the 80% excluded)
Blue eyes (80% of the 80% of the 80% excluded) 

And so on down the line. He came to the conclusion that there might be _one_ man in her metropolitan area that might meet her criteria, not be gay or married, and still... he might not be interested in her.

She had essentially taken herself off the market.

* stats made up because my memory fails me


Again - I AM NOT SAYING TO LOWER YOUR STANDARDS.

I am saying be introspective about them to see if what you want is actually a human being. And yes, A_A that goes for men and women alike. I've had similar conversations with single male friends.


----------



## Buddy400

Lila said:


> According to SA's last post "_She's brilliant.. very intelligent.. HOT_". Yep, she'll eventually find her partner.
> 
> ETA: Do you think she should settle for less?


I have no opinion. I don't know her. 

If she was my daughter and I thought that she had unrealistic requirements that were keeping her from being happy, I'd probably counsel here to reexamine her requirements (as I might counsel a son that insisted on only marrying a 10). But, ultimately, it's their life; their decision.


----------



## Tall Average Guy

always_alone said:


> Invalidate the commentary? Perhaps, that's one way of looking at it. I certainly do see it as recurring pattern:
> 
> Woman blogger writes something about not liking sex and is immediately told how destructive and selfish she is, destined for divorce, and ruin. Woman posts comments about women having lots of choices, and immediately it's about how women don't have these choices.
> 
> Is it a discussion about facing new challenges? Maybe. At the very least, it isn't about thrashing jld anymore.


I see a pattern as well - when you don't like a topic, you immediate label it an attack on women and then attack those making the post. You don't actually address what they are saying. Instead, you attack their motives, assign them arguments they did not make, then knock those down. 

My point was that desiite having lots of choices, there is a segment of the female population that is artificially limiting themselves for certain reasons. But hey, I am just a woman-hater, so continue to disregard me.


----------



## always_alone

marduk said:


> But again, why is it solely about her libido? What does that mean for you?


It means that her only real, valid solution is to find her libido again. 

For example, she was accused of not trying anything. But she did. She went to the doctor, she tried faking it. Doesn't matter: she was seen as "not caring" and "not doing anything" because neither yielded results. I'm sure she could have hired a cook and a maid, quit her job, and any other manner of things. But she would still be seen as "not doing anything" until she found her libido.

Another example: she is accused of having absolutely no consideration of her husband's emotions. Why? Because her time frame for recovery was way too long. No one can survive without sex for that long, don'tcha know. It will for sure destroy her relationship and love for her. Which is maybe true, but again: the only solution is for her to find her libido again.

She was criticized for suggested a hall pass, which is emotionally castrating because it forces him to "back off" and not meet his needs, because it belittles his need for sex with her. Which means, again, that the only viable solution for her is to find her libido, pronto. 

Someone (or some few people) suggested that if only she had approached it more nicely, that she wouldn't have been criticized so thoroughly. And maybe that's true. But in the end, whether she insensitively offers him a hall pass, or very kindly and with great concern offers him a graceful exit out of the marriage, or decides to fake it, or whatever she ends up choosing, the upshot is that she is defective because of her libido, and she either has to put out or get out.

Now on some level that is the reality of relationships. But if that's the case, what's the point of trying to pretend it's something else?


----------



## always_alone

marduk said:


> C'mon, A_A.
> 
> I'm sure you've seen both men and women hold impossibly high standards, end up alone, and then wonder why?


Of course. I was simply responding to Icey who chastized me for being gender neutral. I know plenty of lonely men who wonder where all the good women have gone, and sometimes it is because they want a fantasy, not a real woman.

So, if you want to object, take it up with Icey.


----------



## Tall Average Guy

Icey181 said:


> Women have been achieving financial independence from men since the mid 1830s with the penetration of complex market economies into the rural areas of almost every single state in the Union.


The 1830s? I don't think so. The number of jobs available to women was limited for much of this time.



> Pretending that the modern women is somehow a special and unique historical phenomenon hitherto unheard called the "Newly Independent Woman" is foolish.


Actually, it is pretty recent. Particularly in view of how women have passed men in obtaining college degrees and attending college at all.



> Men and women do not _need_ each other at all.
> 
> Never had.
> 
> Desire and want are not needs.


This I agree with and think it applies to both sexes.


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> It means that her only real, valid solution is to find her libido again.
> 
> For example, she was accused of not trying anything. But she did. She went to the doctor, she tried faking it. Doesn't matter: she was seen as "not caring" and "not doing anything" because neither yielded results. I'm sure she could have hired a cook and a maid, quit her job, and any other manner of things. But she would still be seen as "not doing anything" until she found her libido.


I can see your point. Is there a reason that this hits home for you?

Would it have been different if the genders were reversed, or if it was about affection instead of sex, or respect?

For me, there are things that are requirements to stay married. There would be few times where I would be fine with such requirements being let go of for years and have me still want to be in it.

Do you think she went about this the right way?

How would you go about this?



> Another example: she is accused of having absolutely no consideration of her husband's emotions. Why? Because her time frame for recovery was way too long. No one can survive without sex for that long, don'tcha know. It will for sure destroy her relationship and love for her. Which is maybe true, but again: the only solution is for her to find her libido again.


I do indeed make such an accusation.

It's based on certain things being tied together. She mentions his feelings twice, but in no detail. She mentions her own feelings in rich detail. His emotional response surprises her. Her later email makes no mention of his happiness. A few other things.

If I were him, I'd be far more concerned with the perceived lack of empathy than I would be about the lack of sex.

Because long-term, the lack of empathy, for me, is far scarier than the lack of sex. And if there is empathy, there will likely be sex.



> She was criticized for suggested a hall pass, which is emotionally castrating because it forces him to "back off" and not meet his needs, because it belittles his need for sex with her. Which means, again, that the only viable solution for her is to find her libido, pronto.


Or, she could have just not have offered the hall pass, right? Or not that way?



> Someone (or some few people) suggested that if only she had approached it more nicely, that she wouldn't have been criticized so thoroughly. And maybe that's true. But in the end, whether she insensitively offers him a hall pass, or very kindly and with great concern offers him a graceful exit out of the marriage, or decides to fake it, or whatever she ends up choosing, the upshot is that she is defective because of her libido, and she either has to put out or get out.


She is in some sense medically defective because of the lack of libido. Meaning, it is not the sign of a body and mind that is functioning optimally.

A lack of libido can mean many things. Once you rule out biology, you're left with psychology.

Right?



> Now on some level that is the reality of relationships. But if that's the case, what's the point of trying to pretend it's something else?


The reality of relationships for me is two linked emotional landscapes.

In this case, I don't think they're linked much at all, instead they both appear to be inwardly focused.

And again, you're very fixated on libido. Is this a concern of yours?


----------



## always_alone

Tall Average Guy said:


> I see a pattern as well - when you don't like a topic, you immediate label it an attack on women and then attack those making the post. You don't actually address what they are saying. Instead, you attack their motives, assign them arguments they did not make, then knock those down.
> 
> My point was that desiite having lots of choices, there is a segment of the female population that is artificially limiting themselves for certain reasons. But hey, I am just a woman-hater, so continue to disregard me.


Honestly, TAG, I don't know why you bother reading any of my posts if that's all you ever get out of them. 

And yes, of course: some women limit their dating pool because of their standards and expectations. Some of those women are perfectly happy to work within those limits, indeed they are quite deliberate about doing so. And some, yes, are having trouble finding men that meet those expectations, and yes, surely, they would increase their dating pool if they but lower their expectations.

Now, can you explain to me why this is an important conversation to have in light of the fact that this thread is about a blogger who offered her husband a hall pass? Or the subsequent conversation about who carries what responsibilities in a relationship?


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Buddy400 said:


> I have no opinion. I don't know her.
> 
> If she was my daughter and I thought that she had unrealistic requirements that were keeping her from being happy, I'd probably counsel here to reexamine her requirements (as I might counsel a son that insisted on only marrying a 10). But, ultimately, it's their life; their decision.


From all I gather from her.. she doesn't care about men at all.. is happy with her life the way it is, her girlfriends and even guy friends are enough .. she is not one pining over finding a love interest at all..

She doesn't foresee ever having kids either.. for a time I would ask... "any new men in your life?".... but after that conversation I pretty much quit.. for all I know ... my asking might have annoyed her... it's just NOT on her radar at all...but she likes her partying, going out..what you see on College campuses - she lives it. 

I think seeing her parents divorce didn't help matters.. her younger sister got involved with a bad crowd near the end of high school... drinking, always at the bars... a former BF died of a drug overdose, another she had to get a PFA against , he broke her windshield, was stalking her ...she pretty much thinks men are all a waste due to the experiences she's had... 

When I look at this.. I just think to myself.. "well look at the riff raff you are going out with?".. but there is no talking to her.. she's now a borderline alcoholic at the ripe age of 23 ....so much bar talk on every Holiday.. Being a non drinker myself, on the conservative spectrum... I have to keep my mouth shut, they are family... I just observe......

Only 2 sisters...they are close but very different... one is razor focused on her career...the other seems to live for the next drink...they both appear ( from the conversations I have over heard_ to look upon MEN in general / romance as unnecessary and more trouble than they are worth.. men being the brunt of their jokes...and rolling their eyes even..


----------



## always_alone

marduk said:


> She is in some sense medically defective because of the lack of libido. Meaning, it is not the sign of a body and mind that is functioning optimally.
> 
> A lack of libido can mean many things. Once you rule out biology, you're left with psychology.
> 
> Right?


No. Varying or low libido doesn't necessarily make someone medically defective. It could mean that, but not necessarily. People are different.

And I just explained to you why I focused on libido in her case. I get that you would have preferred if she wrote the article making sure to express lots of care and consternation about what she was putting her husband through -- but she didn't. It was meant to be about her feelings, and it was about her feelings. It strikes me as odd to want her to apologize for that.


----------



## morituri

always_alone said:


> It means that her only real, valid solution is to find her libido again.
> 
> For example, she was accused of not trying anything. But she did. She went to the doctor, she tried faking it. Doesn't matter: she was seen as "not caring" and "not doing anything" because neither yielded results. I'm sure she could have hired a cook and a maid, quit her job, and any other manner of things. But she would still be seen as "not doing anything" until she found her libido.
> 
> Another example: she is accused of having absolutely no consideration of her husband's emotions. Why? Because her time frame for recovery was way too long. No one can survive without sex for that long, don'tcha know. It will for sure destroy her relationship and love for her. Which is maybe true, but again: the only solution is for her to find her libido again.
> 
> She was criticized for suggested a hall pass, which is emotionally castrating because it forces him to "back off" and not meet his needs, because it belittles his need for sex with her. Which means, again, that the only viable solution for her is to find her libido, pronto.
> 
> Someone (or some few people) suggested that if only she had approached it more nicely, that she wouldn't have been criticized so thoroughly. And maybe that's true. But in the end, whether she insensitively offers him a hall pass, or very kindly and with great concern offers him a graceful exit out of the marriage, or decides to fake it, or whatever she ends up choosing, the upshot is that she is defective because of her libido, and she either has to put out or get out.
> 
> Now on some level that is the reality of relationships. But if that's the case, what's the point of trying to pretend it's something else?


Her libido issues became secondary to her behavioral issues. The comments from the women who wrote to her blog chastising her, pointed to this as well. Why some of the women here fail to understand this and condoned her behavior is simply beyond me.

Now as far as her loss of libido is concerned. Even if she had found her libido after the events of her blog article, there is no certainty that her husband will act as if nothing had happened nor that he would not be resentful towards her for her behavior. I suspect that the last page on this topic has yet to be written.

What we need here is to write a male version of her article but substituting the word sex for attention and see how some of the same female TAM members who defended her will defend the husband.


----------



## Icey181

Tall Average Guy said:


> The 1830s? I don't think so. The number of jobs available to women was limited for much of this time.


Attempting to explain to individuals who are not historians of the Early Republic that the entire idea of "separate spheres" was in fact, never actually true, and was more a rhetorical explanation for a socio-cultural _choice_ endorsed and maintained by men and women is sometimes difficult.

Put it this way; if you offered an early 19th Century woman an opportunity to develop a career outside of the home the majority would consider it an insult and would likely demand to know why you would want to deprive them of their morally superior position as Housewife and Mother.

Further explaining that the shift towards technologically advanced manufacturing during the 1830s and into the antebellum era gave women the opportunities to work decent paying jobs which separated them from both their families and those traditional familial ideas is doubly difficult.

That most women only worked those jobs in their youths and immediately entered into domestic marriages the moment they could is also difficult to explain.

Then attempting to explain that the whole "separate spheres" idea of women incapable of finding "jobs" basically _never_ existed on the American frontier or for anyone not in the burgeoning middle class of the 19th century is more fun.

The _entire household worked_ in some manner throughout the entirety of 19th century and the first third of the 20th.

The primary issue was _femme covert_ laws which increasingly fell out of actual usage by the Civil War and were functionally immaterial for most families because women tended to actually control the household _and the household finances_ in the name of their husbands, but under their own recognizance.

Post-Civil War, when the South's male population was selectively devastated women were increasingly _forced_ to work outside of the home.

It was not really until the mid-20th century that women actually demanded access to independent career-paths en masse independent of potential husbands and families.

This is what we call the 2nd Wave of Feminism.

As much as people like to pretend American women have always been proto-feminists demanding careers and "independence" from men and families, the reality is that such thoughts are more or less rhetorical tools of 2nd Wave Feminists and for almost the entire history of pre-WWII America women demanded and fought to _avoid_ work outside of the home.

Domesticity was never a patriarchical system of control by men.

It was the chosen and preferred cultural dynamic enforced and maintained by men and women.

Tinge it with some ideological concepts of Republicanism, Protestant Christianity, and rational capitalist actors, and you have what is basically an entire corpus of Early American Republic historiography.



Tall Average Guy said:


> Actually, it is pretty recent. Particularly in view of how women have passed men in obtaining college degrees and attending college at all.


The only thing that is relatively recent is that women are outpacing men in collegiate attendance and degree attainment for the first time.

Women still tend to make less than their husbands, still tend to marry "up" in an educational and financial sense, and still work less hours and spend more time as parental caretakers than men.

And sociologists routinely report correlations of higher happiness in marriage and less tendencies to divorce in relationships which maintain those dynamics.

What is unique about the modern 21st Century Woman is not that she has access to independent work and education.

It is the demands she is making upon men and society which are unique.


----------



## Icey181

SimplyAmorous said:


> From all I gather from her.. she doesn't care about men at all.. is happy with her life the way it is, her girlfriends and even guy friends are enough .. she is not one pining over finding a love interest at all..
> 
> She doesn't foresee ever having kids either.. for a time I would ask... "any new men in your life?".... but after that conversation I pretty much quit.. for all I know ... my asking might have annoyed her... it's just NOT on her radar at all...but she likes her partying, going out..what you see on College campuses - she lives it.
> 
> I think seeing her parents divorce didn't help matters.. her younger sister got involved with a bad crowd near the end of high school... drinking, always at the bars... a former BF died of a drug overdose, another she had to get a PFA against , he broke her windshield, was stalking her ...she pretty much thinks men are all a waste due to the experiences she's had...
> 
> When I look at this.. I just think to myself.. "well look at the riff raff you are going out with?".. but there is no talking to her.. she's now a borderline alcoholic at the ripe age of 23 ....so much bar talk on every Holiday.. Being a non drinker myself, on the conservative spectrum... I have to keep my mouth shut, they are family... I just observe......
> 
> Only 2 sisters...they are close but very different... one is razor focused on her career...the other seems to live for the next drink...they both appear ( from the conversations I have over heard_ to look upon MEN in general / romance as unnecessary and more trouble than they are worth.. men being the brunt of their jokes...and rolling their eyes even.


Recognizing that this description is not a unique case, but is increasingly _common_ is where some of these broader problems begin to hit.

She is 23 years old.

$100 says that by the age of 28-30 she begins talking about "personal growth" and how she wants to find a dependable man, unlike all of those losers she used to date.

Another $50 down on her explaining to said future LTRs that her past is not important.


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> No. Varying or low libido doesn't necessarily make someone medically defective. It could mean that, but not necessarily. People are different.
> 
> And I just explained to you why I focused on libido in her case. I get that you would have preferred if she wrote the article making sure to express lots of care and consternation about what she was putting her husband through -- but she didn't. It was meant to be about her feelings, and it was about her feelings. It strikes me as odd to want her to apologize for that.


I think the latter is a fair criticism. It's not enough for me to change my mind, but I think it's a valid perspective. From my view, you'd have to gracefully overlook a ton of other similar patterns to get there, but it's possible. 

As for the former, I stand by it. The default modality of human existence during the primary adult phase is not one that is graced by a sustained lack of libido. It's a problem. If it wasn't a problem, there would be a lot less humans on the earth. 

It's a problem for the individual in a similar way that other non-fatal yet non-healthy indicators are a problem -- like if the individual has low energy, muddled thinking, or other problems that have a behavioural component to their symptomolgy.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Icey181

Are we really so far into not wanting to offend people that we are going to argue that a mammal lacking a sex drive is normal?


----------



## ocotillo

always_alone said:


> That's a sad story, ocotillo. But now you know it, and there is still time, yes?


Never too late. 





always_alone said:


> But I'm inclined to think that the variance in how closely associated sex is with love is pretty huge.


I think you're right about that and probably a gazillion things go into it. Just as a casual observation, people like SA, her husband, samyeager, myself and others do seem to have certain things in common, so maybe personality and upbringing are two of them.


----------



## always_alone

marduk said:


> It's a problem for the individual in a similar way that other non-fatal yet non-healthy indicators are a problem -- like if the individual has low energy, muddled thinking, or other problems that have a behavioural component to their symptomolgy.


And yet all of these things are perfectly common and normal in certain circumstances. I am tired at the end of a long day, and my thinking much less clear when I am tired. It is even less clear still if I've had a couple of drinks. Like overall energy, libido is something that ebbs and flows. Maybe there are some people who are always ready, all the time, absolutely regardless of circumstance or context -- but they would be the exception not the norm.

Also, it is perfectly normal that people have different levels of drive, and is not at all a medical problem. A person who only wants sex once a month not necessarily any less healthy than someone who wants it 3x a day. 

Granted, there are also all sorts of medical and psychological issues that play a role. And can seriously impact libido. But, you know, some cases of high libido are also medical problems.


----------



## always_alone

marduk said:


> It's a problem. If it wasn't a problem, there would be a lot less humans on the earth.


You do know, of course, that it really only takes about once a year or so (give or take) to produce quite a healthy brood of babies? If we're going to get all biological about this ...


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> And yet all of these things are perfectly common and normal in certain circumstances. I am tired at the end of a long day, and my thinking much less clear when I am tired. It is even less clear still if I've had a couple of drinks. Like overall energy, libido is something that ebbs and flows. Maybe there are some people who are always ready, all the time, absolutely regardless of circumstance or context -- but they would be the exception not the norm.
> 
> Also, it is perfectly normal that people have different levels of drive, and is not at all a medical problem. A person who only wants sex once a month not necessarily any less healthy than someone who wants it 3x a day.
> 
> Granted, there are also all sorts of medical and psychological issues that play a role. And can seriously impact libido. But, you know, some cases of high libido are also medical problems.


And yet... the medical aspect has been assessed (and we all know how crappy doctors are with such things), and found to be good.

So, making the giant assumption that the doctors she knows actually know what they're talking about, that leaves one bucket: psychological.

And, while it's common to have periods of low libido, I struggle to find *zero* libido and being disgusted with thoughts of sex to be an indicator of glowing health -- be that medical, mental, or both.

Which also goes down the odd path that she thinks it is conducive to a healthy lifestyle and marriage.

Hmm.


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> You do know, of course, that it really only takes about once a year or so (give or take) to produce quite a healthy brood of babies? If we're going to get all biological about this ...


Look at the bonobo.

Look at other primate behaviour.

Hidden estrus drives interesting mating patterns.

We belong to a randy family.


----------



## ocotillo

always_alone said:


> You do know, of course, that it really only takes about once a year or so (give or take) to produce quite a healthy brood of babies? If we're going to get all biological about this ...


Is that deliberately timing ovulation or entirely random?


----------



## Buddy400

always_alone said:


> Now, can you explain to me why this is an important conversation to have in light of the fact that this thread is about a blogger who offered her husband a hall pass? Or the subsequent conversation about who carries what responsibilities in a relationship?


Don't know how it came up, but TAG. I and others responded to _something_. It would be an interesting exercise to try to figure that out. Kind of like, at the end of a fun conversation, you try to figure out how you got on the current topic. 



always_alone said:


> And yes, of course: some women limit their dating pool because of their standards and expectations. Some of those women are perfectly happy to work within those limits, indeed they are quite deliberate about doing so. And some, yes, are having trouble finding men that meet those expectations, and yes, surely, they would increase their dating pool if they but lower their expectations.


Now, if you'd initially come back with something like that instead of going off the rails about how men are always trying to keep women down, maybe it wouldn't have gone on for so long.


----------



## Wazza

always_alone said:


> Because her time frame for recovery was way too long. No one can survive without sex for that long, don'tcha know. It will for sure destroy her relationship and love for her. Which is maybe true, but again: the only solution is for her to find her libido again.


Facts are facts. They don't become any less factual for being unpalatable. What you have said here is essentially what many of guys said. But you knew that. You just don't like it.



always_alone said:


> Now on some level that is the reality of relationships. But if that's the case, what's the point of trying to pretend it's something else?


----------



## Wazza

ocotillo said:


> I don't think the intent of equating sex with love is to claim that the two are identical equivalents.
> 
> One of the comments left in response to the article that struck a chord with me observed that the author's vision of a future in the absence of romantic love was not materially different than a divorce that has ended amicably. --Two people who are still friends with a common interest in the children.
> 
> In my own (Admittedly limited) experience, that is exactly what happened. My wife had absolutely zero interest in sex and I didn't want it under those circumstances, so we didn't do it at all.
> 
> Years past. Eventually all the other things that make a marriage pleasurable and worthwhile faded away too. Flowers, dancing, date nights, gifts, holding hands, anniversaries, reading out loud together, watching the moon rise, discussing dreams, hopes and convictions. All gone.
> 
> It's not that we didn't love each other. It was a familial love though. Sterile and mild in comparison to what we had. --Like giving up French cuisine and having oatmeal for dinner the rest of your life.
> 
> Both of us look back on that as a waste today.


This was a really wise post. I am quoting it to draw attention to it. It places sex in a bigger context very nicely.


----------



## Cosmos

ocotillo said:


> I don't think the intent of equating sex with love is to claim that the two are identical equivalents.
> 
> One of the comments left in response to the article that struck a chord with me observed that the author's vision of a future in the absence of romantic love was not materially different than a divorce that has ended amicably. --Two people who are still friends with a common interest in the children.
> 
> In my own (Admittedly limited) experience, that is exactly what happened. My wife had absolutely zero interest in sex and I didn't want it under those circumstances, so we didn't do it at all.
> 
> Years past. Eventually all the other things that make a marriage pleasurable and worthwhile faded away too. Flowers, dancing, date nights, gifts, holding hands, anniversaries, reading out loud together, watching the moon rise, discussing dreams, hopes and convictions. All gone.
> 
> It's not that we didn't love each other. It was a familial love though. Sterile and mild in comparison to what we had. --Like giving up French cuisine and having oatmeal for dinner the rest of your life.
> 
> Both of us look back on that as a waste today.


I also agree with the wisdom of this post. 

No healthy relationship can survive without both emotional and physical intimacy. Take one of these out of the equation and sooner or later the other will eventually disappear. However, I do believe that emotional intimacy is an absolutely essential component of physical intimacy, because without it this, too, can become as tedious and unappetising as a diet of oatmeal.


----------



## morituri

marduk said:


> Look at the bonobo.
> 
> Look at other primate behaviour.
> 
> Hidden estrus drives interesting mating patterns.
> 
> We belong to a randy family.


Indeed. It seems that there is evidence of this. An article by Ann Gibbons for the American Association for the Advancement of Science titled *Bonobos Join Chimps as Closest Human Relatives*.



Ann Gibbons said:


> When the Max Planck scientists compared the bonobo genome directly with that of chimps and humans, however, they found that a small bit of our DNA, about 1.6%, is shared with only the bonobo, but not chimpanzees. And we share about the same amount of our DNA with only chimps, but not bonobos. These differences suggest that the ancestral population of apes that gave rise to humans, chimps, and bonobos was quite large and diverse genetically—numbering about 27,000 breeding individuals. Once the ancestors of humans split from the ancestor of bonobos and chimps more than 4 million years ago, the common ancestor of bonobos and chimps retained this diversity until their population completely split into two groups 1 million years ago. The groups that evolved into bonobos, chimps, and humans all retained slightly different subsets of this ancestral population's diverse gene pool—and those differences now offer clues today to the size and range of diversity in that ancestral group.


----------



## Wazza

always_alone said:


> And I just explained to you why I focused on libido in her case. I get that you would have preferred if she wrote the article making sure to express lots of care and consternation about what she was putting her husband through -- but she didn't. It was meant to be about her feelings, and it was about her feelings. It strikes me as odd to want her to apologize for that.


It is interesting that a lot of the guys treat the post as factual, and a lot of the ladies treat it as an emotional vent. It certainly helps me understand how my spouse and I might unintentionally miscommunicate.


----------



## morituri

Wazza said:


> It is interesting that a lot of the guys treat the post as factual, and a lot of the ladies treat it as an emotional vent. It certainly helps me understand how my spouse and I might unintentionally miscommunicate.


I call this Bull$h!t. Why? Simply grab the same article, change the gender of the author and the word "sex" for the word "attention" and watch the difference in the comments of the women who defend the blogger.


----------



## Wazza

morituri said:


> I call this Bull$h!t. Why? Simply grab the same article, change the gender of the author and the word "sex" for the word "attention" and watch the difference in the comments of the women who defend the blogger.


My point, the perspective of the women, or both?

Be careful how you answer. This could be a long, cold silence from them, and pistols at dawn with me sir.


----------



## morituri

Wazza said:


> My point, the perspective of the women, or both?
> 
> Be careful how you answer. This could be a long, cold silence from them, and pistols at dawn with me sir.


The perspective of *some* of the women here (*not all btw*). But this is not a gender specific thing, for I've seen some men do it as well.


----------



## Cosmos

Wazza said:


> It is interesting that a lot of the guys treat the post as factual, and a lot of the ladies treat it as an emotional vent. It certainly helps me understand how my spouse and I might unintentionally miscommunicate.


I think the difference could be that some of us can identify with the sheer bats5!t craziness that can follow childbirth and trying to adjust to life as a SAHM whose career is temporarily on hold. This might come naturally to some, but for others the adjustment can prove extremely difficult.


----------



## always_alone

ocotillo said:


> Is that deliberately timing ovulation or entirely random?


Assuming peak fertility of both partners, as well as some good timing. Truly random wouldn't produce the same results because a pregnant woman is, well, already pregnant, and it does take some time (varying periods) for her to recover fertility after giving birth.

But, if what we are concerned about is how many humans are populating the earth, then it bears noting that women can grow and bear a pretty steady stream of offspring without a whole lot of sex.


----------



## always_alone

marduk said:


> Look at the bonobo.
> 
> Look at other primate behaviour.
> 
> Hidden estrus drives interesting mating patterns.
> 
> We belong to a randy family.


Sure. But is it want or need? Does it have anything to do with love? Would a bonobo get offended at a hall pass?

Do they care more about populating the earth or bonding emotionally wit their life-long partners? Or maybe none of the above?


----------



## always_alone

Wazza said:


> Facts are facts. They don't become any less factual for being unpalatable. What you have said here is essentially what many of guys said. But you knew that. You just don't like it.


Facts are facts.

It's like I've said all along: his feelings are perfectly valid and legitimate, deserving of sympathy, but her "aberrant" ones are not.

Worse, we have to also infer that because he feelings are so aberrant and defective, we have to attribute to her all sorts of cold-hearted, malicious, and selfish intent. 

My only real argument here is that her feelings are just as valid as his are. You just don't like it.


----------



## always_alone

Buddy400 said:


> Don't know how it came up, but TAG. I and others responded to _something_. It would be an interesting exercise to try to figure that out. Kind of like, at the end of a fun conversation, you try to figure out how you got on the current topic.


Umm. It's pretty obvious and doesn't require a whole lot of thinking ..


----------



## Wazza

always_alone said:


> Wazza said:
> 
> 
> 
> Facts are facts. They don't become any less factual for being unpalatable. What you have said here is essentially what many of guys said. But you knew that. You just don't like it.
> 
> 
> 
> Facts are facts.
> 
> It's like I've said all along: his feelings are perfectly valid and legitimate, deserving of sympathy, but her "aberrant" ones are not.
> 
> Worse, we have to also infer that because he feelings are so aberrant and defective, we have to attribute to her all sorts of cold-hearted, malicious, and selfish intent.
> 
> My only real argument here is that her feelings are just as valid as his are. You just don't like it.
Click to expand...

No, I think her feelings are perfectly valid. Is that going to make the marriage survive if she enforces an extended period of celibacy?


----------



## always_alone

Wazza said:


> No, I think her feelings are perfectly valid. Is that going to make the marriage survive if she enforces an extended period of celibacy?


I dunno. Is the marriage going to survive if she feels constantly invalidated, pressured and unappreciated for what she does bring to the table?

Facts are facts.


----------



## Wazza

always_alone said:


> I dunno. Is the marriage going to survive if she feels constantly invalidated, pressured and unappreciated for what she does bring to the table?
> 
> Facts are facts.


She said she wants it to survive.


----------



## Tall

always_alone said:


> Facts are facts.
> 
> It's like I've said all along: his feelings are perfectly valid and legitimate(a), deserving of sympathy(b), but her "aberrant" ones are not(c).
> 
> Worse, we have to also infer that because he(d) feelings are so aberrant and defective, we have to attribute to her all sorts of cold-hearted(e), malicious(f), and selfish(g) intent.
> 
> My only real argument here is that her feelings are just as valid as his are(h). You just don't like it.


I will use this post to provide you with the correct answer:

(a) Yes, his feelings are valid and legitimate
(b) Yes, his feelings are deserving of sympathy
(c) I cannot remember anyone claiming that her feelings are "aberrant", so I will consider that a straw man
(d) Assuming you misspelled and mean "her" feelings
(e) Yes, we can infer cold-heartedness
(f) Not sure if we can infer maliciousness. This would depend on the intelligence of the author. Only if she is intelligent, can we infer maliciousness.
(g) Yes, we can definitely infer unconscious selfish intent. I strongly suspect the selfishness is also conscious to the author
(h) Yes, her feelings are equally valid. But again, I can't remember anyone claiming otherwise, so I will consider this another strawman. 

In summary: Their feelings are equally valid, and without a moral value. How they act on their feelings however, carries a value judgment. Suggesting that he ****s other women because she has low libido is not a good way to handle things. It's a horrible way to treat your partner.


----------



## Buddy400

always_alone said:


> Umm. It's pretty obvious and doesn't require a whole lot of thinking ..


Not as obvious as you think if I don't have a clue what you're talking about.


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> Sure. But is it want or need? Does it have anything to do with love? Would a bonobo get offended at a hall pass?
> 
> Do they care more about populating the earth or bonding emotionally wit their life-long partners? Or maybe none of the above?


It depends on what you mean by need. Sex isn't a need in the survival of the individual sense, but of the species or tribe.

A bonobo expects a lifetime hall pass.

I can't speak to their internal emotional state except to say that they seem to be spectacularly non-violent and have little intra-species conflict. It's probably hard to stay angry with someone that is willingly having sex with you whenever you want, and doesn't get angry when you have sex with someone else.


----------



## Icey181

Cosmos said:


> I think the difference could be that some of us can identify with the sheer bats5!t craziness that can follow childbirth and trying to adjust to life as a SAHM whose career is temporarily on hold. This might come naturally to some, but for others the adjustment can prove extremely difficult.


Can you also identify with having the resources to alleviate many of those stresses, knowing your partner would fully support you in hiring some basic help because he is not always there, and then _refusing to do so_ and still citing it as a source of stress?

Because that was the point where I went from potential empathy for a stressed out mom to dislike for a narcissistic individual looking to maintain stress in her life as a fall back excuse to keep everything centered on her.


----------



## Cosmos

Icey181 said:


> Can you also identify with having the resources to alleviate many of those stresses, knowing your partner would fully support you in hiring some basic help because he is not always there, and then _refusing to do so_ and still citing it as a source of stress?


Personally, no, but I gained the impression that there was a lot more to her stress than household chores.


----------



## code187

morituri said:


> Love and sex may be different animals, but for a married couple that started as lovers, the demise of one spells the demise of the other as well.


This is something that terrifies me about my own marriage. We started out as lovers. I never intended it to become more than that, but he did and pursued that to the fullest extent. But now, I think back on what we did in those early days when he was falling in love with me? Nachos and movies followed by crazy sexcapades. 

Interestingly, the author of this article could have been my husband's ex wife. By both of their accounts, this was how the relationship ended.


----------



## EllisRedding

code187 said:


> Nachos and movies followed by crazy sexcapades.


Hmmm, interesting. I think I would prefer to have nachos after the sexcapades


----------



## morituri

code187 said:


> This is something that terrifies me about my own marriage. We started out as lovers. I never intended it to become more than that, but he did and pursued that to the fullest extent. But now, I think back on what we did in those early days when he was falling in love with me? Nachos and movies followed by crazy sexcapades.


Your story reminds me of having met a number of women who had been involved in previous committed relationships, including marriage, who said they had a very hard time keeping a NSA (no strings attached) sexual relationship with men. It seems that the men they chose as lovers, wanted more after a few encounters. I suspect that territoriality is probably behind this because we humans tend to gravitate towards committed relationships like marriage. Marriage represents emotional, financial, and sexual exclusivity. 



> Interestingly, the author of this article could have been my husband's ex wife. By both of their accounts, this was how the relationship ended.


And her marriage dynamic is at least part of the dynamic of many marriages that have ended, are ending and will end later on.


----------



## always_alone

Tall said:


> In summary: Their feelings are equally valid, and without a moral value. How they act on their feelings however, carries a value judgment. Suggesting that he ****s other women because she has low libido is not a good way to handle things. It's a horrible way to treat your partner.


Oh, I meant hers were *actually* valid. Not just in a "there, there, dearie " or a "get over yourself" kind of way. 

But, yes, I quite understand that his feelings are absolutely valid and deserving of sympathy.


----------



## Wazza

always_alone said:


> Oh, I meant hers were *actually* valid. Not just in a "there, there, dearie " or a "get over yourself" kind of way.
> 
> But, yes, I quite understand that his feelings are absolutely valid and deserving of sympathy.


You are very focused on the feelings.

How should that connect with actions? Or is it a guy thing to make that connection?


----------



## Plutobound

I stumbled across this thread and was amazed at how many posts appear. But then this must strike a nerve with so many that we feel the need to comment.

If I refer to the original article, the author believes her marriage is still good:

"Our marriage isn't f**d. We're not getting divorced. And apparently, my husband's not taking my FREE PASS offer. Can we just take the romance out of the relationship for a moment? Can we just focus on raising these tiny, needy, helpless human beings for one moment and leave our ideals out of it? For godssakes, the sex will come. The dates will come. The courtship. The passion. And if they don't for a year … or two or five … that's OK."

She's delusional or the article is phony as many have suggested. 5 years? maybe OK for her, but surely she can't just assume it to be OK for him only because he was not combative about her dropping this bomb or that he was not wanting to take the free pass.

I used to wonder what turns some men into crotchety old men. Now I know. They aren't getting it from their wives and perhaps haven't gotten it for years. Does this gal know what she is creating by telling him it may turn into a 5 year drought? If he is still around after 5 years will he still have the ability/desire when she concludes its time again?

Most men do need the intimacy of regular sex in a marriage. Sharing a bed with the women you love every night only to know that's all it is just a shared bed, is quite a bad blow to a man. The marriage might as well be a business partnership and a roommate instead of a life-mate. If the partner may not have the need, does that mean its OK to refuse pleasuring your mate? It should make your spouse happy to bring joy and satisfaction to the one you love even if you are not as sex-filled as you once were. Having to ask for sex is also a step down this same path for many of us. We all take care of the ones we love. "By golly dear, you make sure the family is fed, everyone has clean clothes and you feed the cat every day what about a piece for me at least once a week? Heck, I'll be glad to wear the same clothes for a month if I can get some loving once in a while."


----------



## always_alone

Wazza said:


> You are very focused on the feelings.
> 
> How should that connect with actions? Or is it a guy thing to make that connection?


Well, we've already established that he has no choice but to keep doing what he's doing or he'll never ever get his needs met, and just be side-lined by this cold-hearted b1tch. Her behaviour, on the other hand, is obviously way out of line. I mean, after all, she wrote about it from her perspective. 

What could be worse?


----------



## always_alone

Plutobound said:


> "Our marriage isn't f**d. We're not getting divorced. And apparently, my husband's not taking my FREE PASS offer. Can we just take the romance out of the relationship for a moment? Can we just focus on raising these tiny, needy, helpless human beings for one moment and leave our ideals out of it? For godssakes, the sex will come. The dates will come. The courtship. The passion. And if they don't for a year … or two or five … that's OK."
> 
> She's delusional or the article is phony as many have suggested. 5 years? maybe OK for her, but surely she can't just assume it to be OK for him only because he was not combative about her dropping this bomb or that he was not wanting to take the free pass.


It is interesting to me that everyone assumes that this is a completely unilateral assumption on her part, and not at all informed in any way by dialogue with her husband. I mean, you might be right. But why are you so certain?


----------



## Wazza

always_alone said:


> Well, we've already established that he has no choice but to keep doing what he's doing or he'll never ever get his needs met, and just be side-lined by this cold-hearted b1tch. Her behaviour, on the other hand, is obviously way out of line. I mean, after all, she wrote about it from her perspective.
> 
> What could be worse?


I haven't said he should continue. I haven't called her a cold hearted *****. I have specifically said she has a right to her behaviour.

None of what you say here came from my words, and a lot directly contradicts it. 

I guess this conversation is upsetting you in some way. I apologize, and will leave you be.


----------



## always_alone

Wazza said:


> I haven't said he should continue. I haven't called her a cold hearted *****. I have specifically said she has a right to her behaviour.
> 
> None of what you say here came from my words, and a lot directly contradicts it.
> 
> I guess this conversation is upsetting you in some way. I apologize, and will leave you be.


But she has been called all of these things in this thread. Maybe not by you specifically, but multiple times by multiple people. Are you saying that you disagree with these characterizaitons? 

And you did indeed ask specifically about behaviour. Tell me, what behaviour exactly are you talking about? Does everything ride on the one fateful sentence, the hall pass? Because otherwise, all we really know is her libido tanked and that she wrote about it. 

And what makes you think it's a "guy thing" to worry about actions? One set of feelings are legitimately expressed and another is not?

I am not upset by this conversation at all. Maybe I just didn't understand your last question? It strikes me that you seem to only see one side of the story as having any basis in "facts".


----------



## Wazza

always_alone said:


> But she has been called all of these things in this thread. Maybe not by you specifically, but multiple times by multiple people. Are you saying that you disagree with these characterizaitons?
> 
> And you did indeed ask specifically about behaviour. Tell me, what behaviour exactly are you talking about? Does everything ride on the one fateful sentence, the hall pass? Because otherwise, all we really know is her libido tanked and that she wrote about it.
> 
> And what makes you think it's a "guy thing" to worry about actions? One set of feelings are legitimately expressed and another is not?
> 
> I am not upset by this conversation at all. Maybe I just didn't understand your last question? It strikes me that you seem to only see one side of the story as having any basis in "facts".


You're not reading what I am writing. If you're not upset then you need to stop accusing me of things I haven't said.


----------



## Tall

always_alone said:


> Oh, I meant hers were *actually* valid. Not just in a "there, there, dearie " or a "get over yourself" kind of way.


Yes, that is what I meant as well. I meant her feelings are *actually* valid. Feelings are unpredictable, and often uncontrollable. Like thoughts, I believe a person is entitled to full acceptance of their feelings and thoughts. 



> But, yes, I quite understand that his feelings are absolutely valid and deserving of sympathy.


On the other hand, I don't believe all feelings (or thoughts) are deserving of sympathy. But the husband in this scenario? Most definitely. *Of course* his feelings deserve our (my, and also your) sympathy. Hell, he chose a life partner and exchanged vows to remain monogamous - because he loves her. And then suddenly she is unable to fulfil part of what constitutes a healthy adult relationship.


----------



## always_alone

Tall said:


> Yes, that is what I meant as well. I meant her feelings are *actually* valid. Feelings are unpredictable, and often uncontrollable. Like thoughts, I believe a person is entitled to full acceptance of their feelings and acceptance.
> 
> 
> 
> On the other hand, I don't believe all feelings (or thoughts) are deserving of sympathy. But the husband in this scenario? Most definitely. *Of course* his feelings deserve our (my, and also your) sympathy. Hell, he chose a life partner and exchanged vows to remain monogamous - because he loves her. And then suddenly she is unable to fulfil part of what constitutes a healthy adult relationship.


Thank you for that clarification. But yes, of course, I quite understand that a sizable chunk of people here do not think she is deserving of any sympathy or understanding. I'm pretty sure that's what I've been responding to all along.

I find it very interesting how you and others here have caricatured her story. "Suddenly unable to fulfll"? Yeah, sure. God forbid a woman (or anyone) ever find it difficult to connect with her husband when he travels away a lot, or be turned off by constant pressure from him. He of course is just the long suffering hero who made the mistake of loving someone. She on the other hand, no chance at all that her feelings are about anything real or valid, or worthy of sympathy. 

Watch yourself ladies. One step out of line and you're out!


----------



## always_alone

Wazza said:


> You're not reading what I am writing. If you're not upset then you need to stop accusing me of things I haven't said.


You told me I was focused on feelings and wondered how I connected that with action. And then wondered whether that's a guy thing.

My first response was snarky because I took you to mean that the focus on feelings is not the point, but that action is.

You didn't like that response and so I asked you what actions you would like me to connect it to, and why you think it's a "guy thing". 

And now I'm not reading and accusing you of things. :scratchhead:


----------



## Wazza

always_alone said:


> You told me I was focused on feelings and wondered how I connected that with action. And then wondered whether that's a guy thing.
> 
> My first response was snarky because I took you to mean that the focus on feelings is not the point, but that action is.
> 
> You didn't like that response and so I asked you what actions you would like me to connect it to, and why you think it's a "guy thing".
> 
> And now I'm not reading and accusing you of things. :scratchhead:


Whatever.


----------



## Tall

always_alone said:


> I find it very interesting how you and others here have caricatured her story. "Suddenly unable to fulfll"? Yeah, sure. God forbid a woman (or anyone) ever find it difficult to connect with her husband when he travels away a lot, or be turned off by constant pressure from him. He of course is just the long suffering hero who made the mistake of loving someone. She on the other hand, no chance at all that her feelings are about anything real or valid, or worthy of sympathy.


In the post above, I have marked
in green, where your post is on point
in amber, where you have created a straw man
in red, where you have applied to me opinions that directly contradict my previous statements

I will respond to the green part, and inform you that this is the last time I will respond to you if you insist on creating straw men or misrepresenting my opinion.

With regards to the green extract:


always_alone said:


> I find it very interesting how you and others here have caricatured her story. "Suddenly unable to fulfll"?


What part do you find interesting, and in what way?


----------



## EllisRedding

always_alone said:


> Thank you for that clarification. But yes, of course, I quite understand that a sizable chunk of people here do not think she is deserving of any sympathy or understanding. I'm pretty sure that's what I've been responding to all along.


You keep stating this as if the folks who don't agree with you disregard what she is dealing with (raising young children, work, traveling husband, etc...). I have not seen one person say this. Those who have issue, it revolves around not what she is feeling but how she chose to deal with it, the tone of the article comes across as selfish, celebratory of her "free pass" choice, and embarrasses her husband publicly. I know when I read the article I definitely had sympathy at first for her, until I kept reading....


----------



## Icey181

always_alone said:


> Thank you for that clarification. But yes, of course, I quite understand that a sizable chunk of people here do not think she is deserving of any sympathy or understanding. I'm pretty sure that's what I've been responding to all along.


Sympathy and understanding have their limits.

Reading the blog and getting some background thanks to Blossom, I see no reason a normal person would not _understand_ why the pressures she has placed on herself (Super-Mom stuff) and the living dynamic of her and her husband (long distance work) would begin to cause resentment when coupled with sexual pressure.

So for that, I can have some empathy for her difficult situation.

_However_…

Despite what she is claiming in the blog, the pressures of life which are supposedly causing her to lose emotional connection and sexual attraction to her husband _are not being addressed_.

She did everything _short_ of being honest about her resentments and having a grown up conversation with her husband.

A woman who eventually uses the phrase "hatred" when describing her relationship with herself and with her husband has serious emotional issues which need to be addressed head on.

And they have nothing to do with needing a maid or a babysitter.

The "Free Pass" was her way of _avoiding_ the hard work and seemingly shutting down her husband so she did not have to deal with it ever again.

At the base we are dealing with a women who decided to send her husband to the bottom of her priority list and demanded _he get over it_.

And deal with it for the next 2-5 years without complaining.

Her stresses are legitimate. Some of her resentments are legitimate. And it sounds like her husband did not approach reconnecting with his wife "correctly."

I put "correctly" in quotations marks because I doubt she ever communicated to him what was actually happening.

But her avoidance of the real problem, her rationalizations that de-prioritizing her husband was not only ok but normal, and her use of a near-marriage ending level of emotional manipulation to brow beat him into submission _are deserving of censure_.



always_alone said:


> I find it very interesting how you and others here have caricatured her story. "Suddenly unable to fulfll"? Yeah, sure. God forbid a woman (or anyone) ever find it difficult to connect with her husband when he travels away a lot, or be turned off by constant pressure from him. He of course is just the long suffering hero who made the mistake of loving someone. She on the other hand, no chance at all that her feelings are about anything real or valid, or worthy of sympathy.
> 
> Watch yourself ladies. One step out of line and you're out!


See, this is the problem.

Whereas most of us are responding to this woman's particular situation, you are holding her up as a stand-in for all Women-kind and seemingly feel you need to defend her in order to defend women in general.

You can concede that the "Free Pass" idea was emotionally manipulative and that unilaterally declaring the death of your intimate relationship and telling your husband to go fvck someone else or learn to deal with it as _immature and selfish_ without conceding that loss of libido with women is unacceptable and never has legitimate basis.

Well, some people can. You apparently cannot.


----------



## always_alone

Icey181 said:


> You can concede that the "Free Pass" idea was emotionally manipulative and that unilaterally declaring the death of your intimate relationship and telling your husband to go fvck someone else or learn to deal with it as _immature and selfish_ without conceding that loss of libido with women is unacceptable and never has legitimate basis.
> 
> Well, some people can. You apparently cannot.


Right. I can either agree with you absolutely and all of the interpretation that you have heaped onto this woman, or I'm completely unable to comprehend the real issues or what is going on in this conversation. Got it!


----------



## always_alone

Wazza said:


> Whatever.


I see. I don't understand what you are getting at, so you dismiss me entirely. Okay.


----------



## always_alone

Tall said:


> In the post above, I have marked
> in green, where your post is on point
> in amber, where you have created a straw man
> in red, where you have applied to me opinions that directly contradict my previous statements
> 
> I will respond to the green part, and inform you that this is the last time I will respond to you if you insist on creating straw men or misrepresenting my opinion.
> 
> With regards to the green extract:
> 
> 
> What part do you find interesting, and in what way?


What I find most interesting in how this author is being invested with all sorts of intents and characteristics for which there is no real evidence. She is being blamed for prioritizing travel, for example, when she isn't even the one travelling. She is being blamed for "celebrating" her loss of libido, when it is pretty clear that she isn't celebrating it at all. She is being blamed because she doesn't hire a cook and a maid, when there are a zillion reasons not to do so that have absolutely nothing to do with making her husband's life miserably. 

And this caricature of her has now become the absolute truth for which anyone who dares to challenge is to be summarily dismissed, accused of generating straw men, and of completely failing to understand what is being said.

So, for example, you made a very clear statement about how one can understand a feeling as being "valid" without it being deserving of sympathy. Then when I say that you have made it clear that she isn't worth of sympathy for all sorts of people here, you tell me I'm contradicting your opinion. How is that a contradiction?

I mean, you said flat out "her feelings are valid", followed by "not all feelings are deserving of sympathy". If you didn't want me to get the impression that you are saying that her feelings aren't deserving of sympathy, maybe you should have taken some time to clarify that you think that she too deserves some sympathy?

No?


----------



## chris007

I did not read the 121 pages of this thread, but I did the linked material and it seems to me that it isn't entirely unnatural for a mother to see decreased libido right after having kids and for a period of time thereafter. It seems to me that its natures design and for many good, common sense reasons. However, I am a bit worried about the amount of people (in majority women) effected by libido decrease due to anti-depressant and other medications, like the pill, over use. It is well proven that the side effects of the over prescribed medication, often include loss of libido and other sex related changes. What seems pretty evident as well, is that some forget that men and women, are very different and in more ways than I can count. Think about this, many women will forgive the male partner if he has an affair with another woman, but then claims it was just sex with no feelings/emotions involved. The opposite is true for most men, put in similar situation. Men are not women, and women are not men. Don't expect each other, to think, act and feel same way, because you never will.

I don't quite understand why the woman that wrote this, doesn't take the time to figure out exactly WHY she is no longer interested in sex with her husband and address the issue. If it turns out that its natural, meaning unfixable, then the couple will have some difficult decisions to make. How is this not common sense to every adult human being?


----------



## Marduk

A thought occurs. Maybe it's off base but I'll throw it out there anyway.

A few years ago, I had an interesting thing happen -- two people close to us were found to be cheating. One man, one woman (not the same marriage.)

When the man cheated, the men universally beat the crap out of him verbally. And he took the punches, admitted his fault, and then regained some grudging semblance of respect and support from the circle of men when he tried to make it right as best he could. And, long-term, as long as he kept his nose clean (including divorcing amicably because that's what his wife wanted), he was still "in" even though he looked very much "out" at the beginning.

When the woman cheated, the women universally supported her -- her husband obviously didn't treat her right, she was only looking for attention, love, etc... at least to her face. Behind her back, they all seemed to both blame and ostracize her -- especially when it came to letting their husbands be around her. And, long-term, that's where it sat. She was "out" even though she looked very much "in" at the beginning.

I wonder if theres some version of this dynamic playing out in this thread.


----------



## EllisRedding

marduk said:


> A thought occurs. Maybe it's off base but I'll throw it out there anyway.
> 
> A few years ago, I had an interesting thing happen -- two people close to us were found to be cheating. One man, one woman (not the same marriage.)
> 
> When the man cheated, the men universally beat the crap out of him verbally. And he took the punches, admitted his fault, and then regained some grudging semblance of respect and support from the circle of men when he tried to make it right as best he could. And, long-term, as long as he kept his nose clean (including divorcing amicably because that's what his wife wanted), he was still "in" even though he looked very much "out" at the beginning.
> 
> When the woman cheated, the women universally supported her -- her husband obviously didn't treat her right, she was only looking for attention, love, etc... at least to her face. Behind her back, they all seemed to both blame and ostracize her -- especially when it came to letting their husbands be around her. And, long-term, that's where it sat. She was "out" even though she looked very much "in" at the beginning.
> 
> I wonder if theres some version of this dynamic playing out in this thread.


This may tie in to that generalization you always hear about how guys can fight one minute, move on, and be friends again. On the other side, women will play nice when they have an issue with another female, but behind their backs rip em apart.


----------



## NobodySpecial

FrenchFry said:


> And honestly, it may not have been a miscalculation and we just aren't privy to their marriage details which made it so.


Did I see somewhere that they are better now? I hope so.


----------



## Marduk

FrenchFry said:


> Maybe.
> 
> If she were here, I would tell her the hall pass was maybe a miscalculation while understanding her motivation behind it.
> 
> The men here see the miscalculation while disagreeing about the motivation and that's where we are stuck because interpretations are like opinions are like...


I can accept that.

Only part of that motivation, from my perspective, is a focus inward.


----------



## Wazza

FrenchFry said:


> Maybe.
> 
> If she were here, I would tell her the hall pass was maybe a miscalculation while understanding her motivation behind it.
> 
> The men here see the miscalculation while disagreeing about the motivation and that's where we are stuck because interpretations are like opinions are like...


I get....to an extent at least...the motivation. Her feelings are normal, understandable, and valid.

She has a right to draw whatever lines she wants. And it may be she needs to. And it shouldn't all be on her to fix everything.

I think the hall pass is a mistake, but not that big a deal unless she continues to seriously push it. I think a bigger mistake would be to not find a way to continue a reasonable sexual relationship with her husband. Not because she gets no say in the matter, or because her feelings don't matter, but because it is likely that a marriage which loses that dimension will deteriorate, perhaps irrecoverably.

I think have said all this before. I think some other guys have too. What are we missing?


----------



## Buddy400

always_alone said:


> You told me I was focused on feelings and wondered how I connected that with action. And then wondered whether that's a guy thing.
> 
> My first response was snarky because I took you to mean that the focus on feelings is not the point, but that action is.
> 
> You didn't like that response and so I asked you what actions you would like me to connect it to, and why you think it's a "guy thing".
> 
> And now I'm not reading and accusing you of things. :scratchhead:


Well, since you've finally worn out Wazza, I'll step in since I've had a day or so to recover.

Wazza was suggesting that we had come to an understanding about the "Feelings" involved, but how do we best move forward to action regarding those feelings. 

Then he made the fatal mistake of light heartedly saying "or is this a guy thing".

You dismissed the first, most important statement and jumped on his off-hand reference to action being a guy thing. All this despite Wazza being one of your most reasonable and understanding debate opponents.

I believe that you read everything through a "Men are a$$holes" filter. First you look for anything that you can pretend is sexist. Then you interpret everything you can in the worst way possible. Then, when someone makes it through your filter and still doesn't seem like an a$$hole, you divert from what they said and refer to the fact that other men in the thread are a$$holes. Every once in a while you seem willing to agree on something, but then you're right back at your usual behavior.

Occasionally you give off the vibe of a rational, interesting person. Probably just an attempt to lure us into another round and round with you.


----------



## ocotillo

FrenchFry said:


> The men here see the miscalculation while disagreeing about the motivation and that's where we are stuck because interpretations are like opinions are like...


Although I think the hall pass was a bad, bad idea, neither the hall pass nor the reasons behind it have much to do with my fundamental disagreement with the article. 

It was the confident declaration that sans romantic love, the marriage will still be fine in five years. It's not clear whether this was five more years for a total of seven or only three more years for a total of five, but either way, it comes across as a trivialization of what would be a horrible strain on any marriage.


----------



## Wazza

always_alone said:


> I see. I don't understand what you are getting at, so you dismiss me entirely. Okay.


The ideas under discussion interest me and are important. 

But when we cannot communicate on the most basic details (for example me agreeing on the validity of her feelings and you coming back and accusing me of ignoring them) then I don't see much hope for communication on the more nuanced matters that really interest me. If my words are not getting through, what was the point of spending time writing them?

And I feel a certain element of attack in your choice of words, which is why I at first assumed you were upset. I am fine with strong discussion. I am not fine with being chipped repeatedly for things I haven't said.

If you want to engage, go over the posts for example where I said her feelings were valid, and try to describe what I am missing.


----------



## Wazza

Buddy400 said:


> Then he made the fatal mistake of light heartedly saying "or is this a guy thing".


Actually, it was a serious attempt to understand what I was missing in a discussion that seems to be divided along gender lines. I was trying to distinguish between feelings (her personal struggles that led to a loss of desire and sparked this whole thread) with actions (the possible decision to cut off sex). I was wondering whether that was a male perspective.



Buddy400 said:


> I believe that you read everything through a "Men are a$$holes" filter.


More or less what I concluded too. If that is not the desired impression, perhaps a modicum of adjustment in the choice of words would be a constructive move.


----------



## Marduk

FrenchFry said:


> Even thinking about it a little more @ocotillo, it's one of those instances where I think some people will call that hyperbole and some will take it at face value.
> 
> I didn't even think about that as a real time frame.


It's a pretty slippery slope to not call someone on being hyperbolic.

If you can't take someone at their word, well, then you're boned. And the other person has a free ride to rewrite history however they want.

That's basically what I've been saying is part of the equation.


----------



## Wazza

FrenchFry said:


> I think part of her motivation is that her marriage had already lost that dimension on her end for whatever reasons and since she could not figure out how to get her husband on that level, she offered the next best thing--outsourcing.
> 
> Because she could not muster a sexual response, she was looking for a solution and had not thought it all the way through.


Where will it go if she cannot muster a sexual response for an extended period?


----------



## Marduk

FrenchFry said:


> That's probably where jld would disagree and I to an extent and it is probably at least 70% an outlook/personality thing.
> 
> If I can discern the motivation or feeling behind the hyperbole, I don't feel any need to call it out. If I am unsure, I will dig deeper.
> 
> I also use hyperbole and other verbal or literal affects because of the effect when in fact my own feelings are probably significantly more muted than I come off as.
> 
> Also, I assume pretty much everything on the internet is hyperbole or embellished or biased to an extent and take anything said with a huge grain of salt.
> 
> It's a communication style issue.


I (gently) disagree.

People with said communication style generally don't like to be held to their word, in my experience.

I belong to the "your word is your bond" camp.


----------



## morituri

marduk said:


> I (gently) disagree.
> 
> People with said communication style generally don't like to be held to their word, in my experience.
> 
> I belong to the "your word is your bond" camp.


Agreed. Plus it is often based on personal biases.


----------



## always_alone

Buddy400 said:


> I believe that you read everything through a "Men are a$$holes" filter. First you look for anything that you can pretend is sexist. Then you interpret everything you can in the worst way possible. Then, when someone makes it through your filter and still doesn't seem like an a$$hole, you divert from what they said and refer to the fact that other men in the thread are a$$holes. Every once in a while you seem willing to agree on something, but then you're right back at your usual behavior.
> 
> Occasionally you give off the vibe of a rational, interesting person. Probably just an attempt to lure us into another round and round with you.


It's interesting you say that, because my perception is that I too am being misinterpreted in the worst possible light.


----------



## Wazza

marduk said:


> It's a pretty slippery slope to not call someone on being hyperbolic.
> 
> If you can't take someone at their word, well, then you're boned. And the other person has a free ride to rewrite history however they want.
> 
> That's basically what I've been saying is part of the equation.


I think the blog was clearly in part hyperbole. Nothing wrong with that, it's a great way to make a point. 

Having said that, if they can't move beyond the hyperbole as a couple, then "boned" is an apt description, and they may not realise till it's too late.


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> It's interesting you say that, because my perception is that I too am being misinterpreted in the worst possible light.


How would you like to be interpreted?


----------



## Wazza

FrenchFry said:


> She changed her mind though...


Maybe. Love to know how he sees it.


----------



## Wazza

marduk said:


> I (gently) disagree.
> 
> People with said communication style generally don't like to be held to their word, in my experience.
> 
> I belong to the "your word is your bond" camp.


Ever said, or thought, "well OBVIOUSLY that isn't what I meant..."?


----------



## morituri

It would seem that some of the women who defend her, subscribe to "an attack on one woman's behavior is an attack on all women".


----------



## ocotillo

FrenchFry said:


> Even thinking about it a little more @ocotillo, it's one of those instances where I think some people will call that hyperbole and some will take it at face value.


Maybe you're right, FrenchFry. 

-But I would say that rather than diminishing what comes across as a trivialization of the problem, hyperbolic exaggeration (If that is indeed the case) adds to it.


----------



## Marduk

Wazza said:


> Ever said, or thought, "well OBVIOUSLY that isn't what I meant..."?


Very rarely.


----------



## Marduk

ocotillo said:


> Maybe you're right, FrenchFry.
> 
> -But I would say that rather than diminishing what comes across as a trivialization of the problem, hyperbolic exaggeration (If that is indeed the case) adds to it.





> Narcissists are known for a grandiose sense of self-importance[34] and can uses exaggeration to thwart any recognition of a moderate fallibility


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exaggeration


----------



## Wazza

FrenchFry said:


> I'll try and answer both posts Wazza.
> 
> Where will it go? That is a question that only she could answer. Even if she attempted to make a unilateral decision on their sex life, her husband could still make the determination that they are incompatible.
> 
> And it could have gone that way. I don't know if she thought of that but I would assume so otherwise again she's being insanely short-sighted.
> 
> Or...her husband is used to her communication style and while he was hurt by such an offer he somehow got to the core of her message and they were able to figure it out together.


The sense that she is (or might be, recognising the hyperbole in her blog) insanely shortsighted is one of the things that concerns me. Or "genuinely conflicted" might be a fairer description.

I think sometimes we make a decision that is a real problem for our parter and don't realise. We go on, and some time later (Weeks? Months? Years?) we realise the damage we did. And by that time the damage has been amplified by resentment.


----------



## Buddy400

always_alone said:


> It's interesting you say that, because my perception is that I too am being misinterpreted in the worst possible light.


This is an excellent opportunity for an experiment.

From now on (until one of us calls it off) we will attempt to interpret each other's posts assuming that the other has the best intentions and no ingrained bias against men or women.

Deal?


----------



## ocotillo

FrenchFry said:


> Hyperbole?
> @ocotillo, perhaps that was her objective. Tit for tat, strain for strain and until her husband could feel what she was feeling, he wasn't actually getting what she was saying.


That strikes me as a plausible explanation for the hall pass idea and the spoken ****tail hour conversation with her husband.

I'm not so sure it works as an explanation for her internal thought processes, especially as she's described them in written form.


----------



## Wazza

FrenchFry said:


> That's probably where jld would disagree and I to an extent and it is probably at least 70% an outlook/personality thing.


True, but a lot of guys here would say they dislike it when a woman reacts that way. I know JLD and Dug are happy, but by her own omission he's low emo. 

Deida, who JLD seems to like, writes in one point in "Superior Man" that it's within a woman's nature to test her man. The way he writes, it looks to me like a cycle of sh1t tests, and I wouldn't put up with that endlessly. I am writing a book about that entitled "The way of the inferior man who is ok with his inferiority and the peace it brings to his life" if anyone wants to advance order a copy.

:grin2:

So if that's what she's doing, hopefully she knows when to stop.


----------



## Wazza

FrenchFry said:


> Maybe I'm mistaken, but this happens in pretty much all relationships.
> 
> What I have learned, however, it's not that we should prevent resentment but be as open and as willing as possible to work on it when it happens.
> 
> If that is impossible, then we have to move on.


Agree its universal, but the degree varies. I like to avoid resentment where I can. That's plan A. Getting over it is plan B. Moving on is plan C.

I think a degree of plan A is still open to her - not creating resentment in him. In terms of her feelings to her husband....my understanding is that we guys are not usually the cause of the baby blues, but our insensitivity can exacerbate it. So I guess maybe she already resents him. Dunno.


----------



## always_alone

Wazza said:


> If you want to engage, go over the posts for example where I said her feelings were valid, and try to describe what I am missing.


My overall sense on this thread is that the blogger is being interpreted in the worst possible light. Motives, attitudes, actions are being attributed to her that, really there is no evidence for. And so admittedly, this is partly what I am pushing against.

This is not to point all sorts of fingers at you, of course. I know that you have agreed that her feelings are valid, and I get that you just want her to repair her marriage by having sex with her husband again, and considering his feelings and the long term consequence. And maybe you are right that without sex (sooner rather than later) her marriage will die.

But I also think that always pushing the conversation back to the, yes, but she needs to have sex with her husband because that's what he needs is exactly the sort of pressure she is reacting to, exactly the sort of pressure that leads to things like offers of hall passes. Maybe it is a fact that he will leave her if she doesn't start having sex with him. But living with that that sort of vibe is pretty atrocious. Knowing that you are a failure, have failed, may never be anything but a failure, is a whole lot of pressure, and is most likely to compound the problem. Certainly it won't alleviate it.

I mean, all of this is moot at this point because she is again having sex, they are (as far as we know) fine. But, all I am saying, have ever said, is that the pressure she is experiencing is actually pretty real, is evidenced by many of the posts on this thread, and generally puts her squarely between a rock and a hard place. And it's all fine to accuse her of making poor choices, but she really doesn't have a whole lot of options available to her. And in the end of all, deprivation of her needs is just as likely to lead to the end of the relationship as deprivation of his. 

Sex may be a critical part of a relationship, but even you have said that it is not the most important part. And that is, in a nutshell, pretty much what she is saying. 


That's what I think you are missing.


----------



## always_alone

Buddy400 said:


> Deal?


Deal.


----------



## always_alone

ocotillo said:


> Maybe you're right, FrenchFry.
> 
> -But I would say that rather than diminishing what comes across as a trivialization of the problem, hyperbolic exaggeration (If that is indeed the case) adds to it.


Is she trivializng the oroblem? Or is she downplaying one aspect of it in order to heighten another aspect?

I find the language used to describe her posts quite interesting:
She "suddenly" can't do "what adult people" do
She is "celebrating"
She "does not understand", or "doesn't care",
She is "emotionally castrating"

Personally, I think she is well aware of the magnitude of the oroblem, and her references to it show, she absolutely knows how she is "supposed" to be.

But is that really all there is to say about it? What happens, for example, when I get sick? Should I expect my SO to dump me because he can't express his love? I mean, realistically he might ..but is it always trivialiizng for me to say, "you know what, my relationship *is* based on more than that --and can withstand this hardship."


----------



## Wazza

always_alone said:


> My overall sense on this thread is that the blogger is being interpreted in the worst possible light. Motives, attitudes, actions are being attributed to her that, really there is no evidence for. And so admittedly, this is partly what I am pushing against.
> 
> This is not to point all sorts of fingers at you, of course. I know that you have agreed that her feelings are valid, and I get that you just want her to repair her marriage by having sex with her husband again, and considering his feelings and the long term consequence. And maybe you are right that without sex (sooner rather than later) her marriage will die.
> 
> But I also think that always pushing the conversation back to the, yes, but she needs to have sex with her husband because that's what he needs is exactly the sort of pressure she is reacting to, exactly the sort of pressure that leads to things like offers of hall passes. Maybe it is a fact that he will leave her if she doesn't start having sex with him. But living with that that sort of vibe is pretty atrocious. Knowing that you are a failure, have failed, may never be anything but a failure, is a whole lot of pressure, and is most likely to compound the problem. Certainly it won't alleviate it.
> 
> I mean, all of this is moot at this point because she is again having sex, they are (as far as we know) fine. But, all I am saying, have ever said, is that the pressure she is experiencing is actually pretty real, is evidenced by many of the posts on this thread, and generally puts her squarely between a rock and a hard place. And it's all fine to accuse her of making poor choices, but she really doesn't have a whole lot of options available to her. And in the end of all, deprivation of her needs is just as likely to lead to the end of the relationship as deprivation of his.
> 
> Sex may be a critical part of a relationship, but even you have said that it is not the most important part. And that is, in a nutshell, pretty much what she is saying.
> 
> 
> That's what I think you are missing.


I agree with you that a lot of motives attributed to her by some guys are harsh speculation - a worst case with no real foundation in what she has written. That should be tuned out. We should keep an open mind on what sort of person she is. We don't know if she's a paragon of virtue or a cesspool of evil, based on the information to hand.

And I think we both agree that this problem is not just on her, it is also on the husband. He needs to play his part. They need to get through together. 

Are we good so far?

If so, now we come to the meat. There are two things I think you might be saying I am missing:

1. She's between a rock and a hard place.
2. Its about more than sex.

Rock and hard place. We agree her options all suck. Maybe the difference is you are focused on feeling for her plight, where as think it is possible to feel her pain, and still advise her to consider her options, bad as they are, and do the best she can. I'm actually not sure we are saying anything different.

Marriage being more than sex. Yes, but a marriage without sex is incomplete in a big way. Do you agree that the more the sex life deteriorates, the greater the risk that her expressed dream of still being together in 15 years will not come true?


----------



## Cosmos

Personal said:


> It will go nowhere! In fact the longer a persons relationship remains a platonic, the more likely that it will always ever remain thus.
> 
> Personally I wouldn't accept it myself, yet some seem to accept it for 20 years and even longer?
> 
> Why anyone would accept this (especially when some of them seethe with resentment) unless they are physically separated for work and or medical reasons is beyond me.
> 
> Except for the caveats of any occasions when my wife and I are apart for work or for medical reasons. An absence of sex for even one week would be noticeable and an absence of two weeks or more would be significant evidence of a serious problem that may or may not have a sexual cause.
> 
> That said, I don't think this woman is terrible for feeling the way she does/has, or for saying what she thought, or for the solution she offered, and or for the way she expresses herself.
> 
> If this happened to me and my wife no longer wanted to have sex with me and offered me a pass, I don't think she should be vilified for how she feels.


I agree.

My feeling is that the blogger had so many fustrations and resentments in her life, that her attitude towards sex was just a symptom of a bigger picture.

In her blog about husbands away on business (I posted a link earlier in this thread - The 20 Thoughts Moms Have When Their Husbands Are Away On Business - Scary Mommy), her anxiety about being alone with the children for lengthy periods whilst her H is away on business was clear... 

She also mentioned that on occasions she hoped her H wouldn't call, because:- "You sound calm, cool and collected. I sound crazy. The kids sound crazy. I'll resent you. Don't call."

Of course we don't know all the facts, but the latter would certainly imply that, for whatever reason, she felt unable to share her anxieties, frustrations and resentments with her H. Whether this is her fault alone, or an indication of the poor communication between the two of them, we really don't know but, IMO, there is a lot more going on in her marriage than her loss of libido.


----------



## always_alone

Wazza said:


> Rock and hard place. We agree her options all suck. Maybe the difference is you are focused on feeling for her plight, where as think it is possible to feel her pain, and still advise her to consider her options, bad as they are, and do the best she can. I'm actually not sure we are saying anything different.
> 
> Marriage being more than sex. Yes, but a marriage without sex is incomplete in a big way. Do you agree that the more the sex life deteriorates, the greater the risk that her expressed dream of still being together in 15 years will not come true?


I agree, Wazza. She should consider her options and do the best she can. She should consider her husband's feelings, he is, after all, her husband and presumably she cares about him. I guess maybe where I differ is that it seems to me she already did these things. Did she do it flawlessly, with perfect elegance and grace? No. But I guess I'm just not clear on what you would rather she do? Hire a cook and a maid, take the kids to grandma's and have a holiday, see if that makes her feel sexier? Go to therapy to find out why she is so broken? Offer to leave him? Drag him to therapy to find out why *they* are so broken? I mean, there are options --but why are these so much better than what she did? Especially since what she did seemingly worked pretty well?

And yes, no doubt it's true that the more sex deteriorates, the less likely there is to be a relationship. It does make me sad, though, that there is so little forgiveness or understanding about this. Or maybe I'm just a sucker and a fool for staying with someone whose drive is deteriorating, and who has problems with ED?


----------



## Wazza

always_alone said:


> I agree, Wazza. She should consider her options and do the best she can. She should consider her husband's feelings, he is, after all, her husband and presumably she cares about him. I guess maybe where I differ is that it seems to me she already did these things. Did she do it flawlessly, with perfect elegance and grace? No. But I guess I'm just not clear on what you would rather she do? Hire a cook and a maid, take the kids to grandma's and have a holiday, see if that makes her feel sexier? Go to therapy to find out why she is so broken? Offer to leave him? Drag him to therapy to find out why *they* are so broken? I mean, there are options --but why are these so much better than what she did? Especially since what she did seemingly worked pretty well?


I don't know if what she did worked. First, I think the blog is clickbait, not fact. Second, I think you need to know how both sides feel, over some time, to judge that. 

As to what I would rather she do, not necessarily anything. Some of the things you mentioned might make a different, but I don't know. 



always_alone said:


> And yes, no doubt it's true that the more sex deteriorates, the less likely there is to be a relationship. It does make me sad, though, that there is so little forgiveness or understanding about this. Or maybe I'm just a sucker and a fool for staying with someone whose drive is deteriorating, and who has problems with ED?


Forgiveness and understanding are good. I'm getting older, and things don't work as well as they used to for me either. I think that is true for all of us. But for me sex is about an emotional connection, not just physical.


----------



## EllisRedding

Wazza said:


> Forgiveness and understanding are good. I'm getting older, and things don't work as well as they used to for me either. I think that is true for all of us.* But for me sex is about an emotional connection, not just physical*.


The bolded applies to me as well, it is not just about the "release" or the physical aspect. When my wife and I go throw dry periods my emotional connection to her deteriorates (she knows it as well b/c she can see this in me). Fortunately for us it is just about making time for ourselves with kids as there are no other physical limitations.


----------



## ocotillo

AA



always_alone said:


> Is she trivializng the oroblem? Or is she downplaying one aspect of it in order to heighten another aspect?


I'd say basically the same thing that I said to FrenchFry: That strikes me as plausible in spoken conversation or as an abstraction, but doesn't work so well as a description of the mental stepping stones one uses to reach a conclusion. -And anyone who employs the deliberate distortion of literary devices like hyperbole in their thinking is probably not a very clear thinker. 





always_alone said:


> I find the language used to describe her posts quite interesting:
> She "suddenly" can't do "what adult people" do
> She is "celebrating"
> She "does not understand", or "doesn't care",
> She is "emotionally castrating"


I don't recall saying any of those things myself and suspect any who did were probably speaking more from a standpoint of their own emotional hurt rather than fairness and impartiality. 

I would say that repeated attempts to claim that Mr. Hosseini's pressuring behavior preceded rather than followed Ms. Hosseini's loss of libido; the portrayal of the article as the semi-private ruminations of a blogger rather than a freelance writer's submission to a self described parenting website and an inability to express the frustrated HD partner's viewpoint without resorting to pejoratives and adverse character judgements all probably represent a distaff corollary to what you cite above. 

Personally, I'm inclined to be philosophical about it. I'm embarrassed about how long it took me to figure out that TAM is far more about 'feels' than it is about 'facts' and if I didn't pay attention to what the ladies are saying, then I'm just wasting my time here anyway. 

Regardless of who is at fault here, (Him, her, both or nobody) I think the fundamental problem with this particular article is still the same: The author describes what is clearly a marriage in crises and repeatedly downplays and denies that fact.





always_alone said:


> What happens, for example, when I get sick? Should I expect my SO to dump me because he can't express his love? I mean, realistically he might ..but is it always trivialiizng for me to say, "you know what, my relationship *is* based on more than that --and can withstand this hardship."


I would say that ultimately it depends on whether you are speaking on behalf of both of you or only for yourself. In other words, if you've sat down, discussed it and decided that the romantic dimension of the relationship is not absolutely necessary, that would be one thing. It would be quite another to unilaterally decide what is and what is not important in the relationship.


----------



## tom67

ocotillo said:


> AA
> 
> 
> 
> I'd say basically the same thing that I said to FrenchFry: That strikes me as plausible in spoken conversation or as an abstraction, but doesn't work so well as a description of the mental stepping stones one uses to reach a conclusion. -And anyone who employs the deliberate distortion of literary devices like hyperbole in their thinking is probably not a very clear thinker.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't recall saying any of those things myself and suspect any who did were probably speaking more from a standpoint of their own emotional hurt rather than fairness and impartiality.
> 
> I would say that repeated attempts to claim that Mr. Hosseini's pressuring behavior preceded rather than followed Ms. Hosseini's loss of libido; the portrayal of the article as the semi-private ruminations of a blogger rather than a freelance writer's submission to a self described parenting website and an inability to express the frustrated HD partner's viewpoint without resorting to pejoratives and adverse character judgements all probably represent a distaff corollary to what you cite above.
> 
> Personally, I'm inclined to be philosophical about it. I'm embarrassed about how long it took me to figure out that TAM is far more about 'feels' than it is about 'facts' and if I didn't pay attention to what the ladies are saying, then I'm just wasting my time here anyway.
> 
> Regardless of who is at fault here, (Him, her, both or nobody) I think the fundamental problem with this particular article is still the same: The author describes what is clearly a marriage in crises and repeatedly downplays and denies that fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would say that ultimately it depends on whether you are speaking on behalf of both of you or only for yourself. In other words, if you've sat down, discussed it and decided that the romantic dimension of the relationship is not absolutely necessary, that would be one thing. It would be quite another to unilaterally decide what is and what is not important in the relationship.


:iagree::iagree::iagree:
Who gives a sh!t who's fault it is she said something to her husband that can never be unsaid.
As a guy I would be crushed like him and it would be a matter of when not if I'm leaving.


----------



## Marduk

FrenchFry said:


> I think the issue is she already has resentment. Which is why she weighed the benefits of the hall pass.
> 
> From what I'm reading she could:
> Create more resentment in herself by doing what she was doing (faking it till she makes it)
> 
> Create resentment in him by saying no more sex in the marriage
> 
> Create resentment by offering a hall pass.
> 
> I don't think the thought option three would create as much hurt and resentment as it did--she was trying to alleviate her own and create a win-win situation.
> 
> In doing so, she may have created additional resentment in her husband. At that point, that is when the conversation needed to happen.


Wait, your first defence of her was that she was just blurting it out.

Your second defence was that it was just hyperbole.

Now your third is that she was, from her point of view, acting in a considered, thoughtful, and rational way.

I'm getting confused, which is it again?

Because Occam's Razor tells me that my theory that she's just a narcissist seems very consistent and doesn't need continual re-writing to have it hold water.


----------



## always_alone

ocotillo said:


> AA
> 
> I'd say basically the same thing that I said to FrenchFry: That strikes me as plausible in spoken conversation or as an abstraction, but doesn't work so well as a description of the mental stepping stones one uses to reach a conclusion. -And anyone who employs the deliberate distortion of literary devices like hyperbole in their thinking is probably not a very clear thinker.


I don't think this is a fair generalization. One can be both a clear thinker and employ many different communication styles and literary devices. And sometimes, communicating in even and agreeable tones can mean that the person that we are speaking to fails to appreciate just how important or significant the issue is to us..

Now granted, she is, in her blog, speaking to us, rather than to her husband, and so that's a different kettle of fish. Nonetheless, that she didn't take the time to spell out her thought process in academic prose, or glossed over a very large number of details in how the actual story played out, doesn't mean that she isn't aware of and attentive to those details in practice. 




ocotillo said:


> I would say that ultimately it depends on whether you are speaking on behalf of both of you or only for yourself. In other words, if you've sat down, discussed it and decided that the romantic dimension of the relationship is not absolutely necessary, that would be one thing. It would be quite another to unilaterally decide what is and what is not important in the relationship.


And again, I think this is an assumption, not necessarily a claim of what she actually did. Many people read her as making a unilateral decision, and I would agree with that in so far as she lost her libido (unilaterally?) and that made her not want sex with him. But the other claims re "he won't leave me" and "he won't take my hall pass" and "he will be waiting for me". How do we know these are unilateral? My guess is that her confidence in asserting them comes from what he himself said in the conversations.

Personally, if it were me, I would wish my SO to say that sex isn't the most important thing to him, and that he would be there for me to work through things like this. Maybe not indefinitely, and no matter how much of an a$$ I am, but tbh, I wouldn't have expected that anyway as we've already had that conversation and I already know that his love for me is in no way unconditional and could be lost. As for me, he (unilaterally?) developed ED and has much less sexual interest. I could choose to leave him for that, I suppose, but I would like to think that what we have is more than sex.


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> Is she trivializng the oroblem? Or is she downplaying one aspect of it in order to heighten another aspect?
> 
> I find the language used to describe her posts quite interesting:
> She "suddenly" can't do "what adult people" do


Adult married people that have procreated have had sex. She called a time out. So, technically true. She also pre-empted and dismissed any attempt by her husband to reconcile said situation, which is also a sign of maturity.

Therefore, not very adult.


> She is "celebrating"


Celebrate: verb.
3. honor or praise publicly.


> She "does not understand", or "doesn't care",


She did not expect his behaviour.
Therefore, she did not understand the impact of what she was doing. So the first statement is QED.

As to the second, there are two options: she was unwilling to understand, or unable to understand. Which one would you like?


> She is "emotionally castrating"


See above. She short-circuited her husband's attempts to resolve the situation in a mutually amicable way.

To castrate:
verb

3. Psychology. to render impotent, literally or metaphorically, by psychological means, especially by threatening a person's masculinity or femininity.
4.to deprive of strength, power, or efficiency; weaken:

Again, QED.


> Personally, I think she is well aware of the magnitude of the oroblem, and her references to it show, she absolutely knows how she is "supposed" to be.


Therefore, she is not unable to deal with it effectively, she is unwilling to.


> But is that really all there is to say about it? What happens, for example, when I get sick? Should I expect my SO to dump me because he can't express his love? I mean, realistically he might ..but is it always trivialiizng for me to say, "you know what, my relationship *is* based on more than that --and can withstand this hardship."


I would be fascinated to hear what happens when her husband gets sick.


----------



## always_alone

tom67 said:


> :iagree::iagree::iagree:
> Who gives a sh!t who's fault it is she said something to her husband that can never be unsaid.
> As a guy I would be crushed like him and it would be a matter of when not if I'm leaving.


And that is absolutely your choice, of course. No one should have to put up with injury or poor treatment in their relationship.

But at the same time, if we throw everything away everytime we get hurt we (a) rob ourselves of opportunities to grow and (b) may very well find ourselves very, very alone and wondering why.


----------



## always_alone

marduk said:


> Adult married people that have procreated have had sex. She called a time out.


So any time someone doesn't want sex, they aren't adult? 



marduk said:


> She also pre-empted and dismissed any attempt by her husband to reconcile said situation, which is also a sign of maturity.


Where? Is this still about the cook and maid issue? Because IIRC, he didn't actually volunteer to do this. Or anything else. 



marduk said:


> Celebrate: verb.
> 3. honor or praise publicly.



Where? 



marduk said:


> As to the second, there are two options: she was unwilling to understand, or unable to understand. Which one would you like?


Sounds to me like she understood his emotions just fine. He was upset; she saw that he was upset. 



marduk said:


> 3. Psychology. to render impotent, literally or metaphorically, by psychological means, especially by threatening a person's masculinity or femininity.
> 4.to deprive of strength, power, or efficiency; weaken:



So, her having her own POV and needs is castrating?


----------



## Marduk

FrenchFry said:


> Solving feeling problems by using philosophical practices rarely works out.
> 
> It's all, some or neither.


Logic is what it is.

If you continually need to change your theory to come up with an explanation of an event, you don't need to change the facts, you need to change the theory.


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> So any time someone doesn't want sex, they aren't adult?


I didn't say that, and you know it.



> Where? Is this still about the cook and maid issue? Because IIRC, he didn't actually volunteer to do this. Or anything else.


Actually, he attempted to problem solve based on what she said was the problem.

You know, like a grown up.


> Where?


Sigh. Seriously? 


> Sounds to me like she understood his emotions just fine. He was upset; she saw that he was upset.


She clearly articulates surprise at his reaction.



> So, her having her own POV and needs is castrating?


Her response is castrating. Not her emotions. Which has been said to you at least 99 times by this point.

You don't hear it because you don't want to.

This is clearly about you and not the article.


----------



## Icey181

always_alone said:


> But I also think that always pushing the conversation back to the, yes, but she needs to have sex with her husband because that's what he needs is exactly the sort of pressure she is reacting to, exactly the sort of pressure that leads to things like offers of hall passes.


She absolutely does need to get back to a place where she wants to and does have sex with her husband.

The whole outrage at this blog is basically her statement/advice that a marriage devoid of intimacy can survive for years on end in a stasis _until she decides she wants it back_.

If you are in a marriage in which a spouse has suddenly lost all desire for intimacy with their husband/wife then _the marriage is effectively over_.

It has become a partnership and friendship.

The Hall Pass was her stating she was fine with the marriage being over and that her husband needed to find a way to cope or else divorce her.

And, as I said before, I find it interesting that despite all of her supposedly serious and long-term resentments, a little space (read emotional and physical detachment) from her husband brought her libido roaring back.

I am relatively certain something clicked in her head and she realized that without intimacy her marriage was over.

In short, she realized the closing paragraphs of her original blog were utter horse-sh!t.


----------



## Icey181

Personal said:


> It will go nowhere! In fact the longer a persons relationship remains a platonic, the more likely that it will always ever remain thus.
> 
> Personally I wouldn't accept it myself, yet some seem to accept it for 20 years and even longer?
> 
> Why anyone would accept this (especially when some of them seethe with resentment) unless they are physically separated for work and or medical reasons is beyond me.
> 
> Except for the caveats of any occasions when my wife and I are apart for work or for medical reasons. An absence of sex for even one week would be noticeable and an absence of two weeks or more would be significant evidence of a serious problem that may or may not have a sexual cause.
> 
> That said, I don't think this woman is terrible for feeling the way she does/has, or for saying what she thought, or for the solution she offered, and or for the way she expresses herself.
> 
> If this happened to me and my wife no longer wanted to have sex with me and offered me a pass, I don't think she should be vilified for how she feels.


If my wife offered me a hall pass after an extended period of a dead bedroom/general lack of intimacy I would literally tell her that I will take care of the paperwork, but the marriage is over.

Offering to let your spouse go have sex with someone else is not a solution to intimacy problems between a husband and a wife.

It is the ultimate avoidance technique.


----------



## Marduk

FrenchFry said:


> Feelings are what they are and trying to make them fit into a rational box ends up in failure. Or hall passes.


Feelings have an internal logic of their own.

But there is still logic there. You just have to understand the underlying rationale.

Narcissism fits better than anything else. It doesn't mean being a mommy is hard or that having your libido vanish makes you scared you're going to lose your baby's daddy (her term for her husband).

What it does do is skew your logic so that you relate everything in terms of how it impacts you and what you want, and the other person's state simply doesn't occur to you.

Which is what happened.


----------



## Marduk

FrenchFry said:


> a_a probably has even less in common with the author than I do.
> 
> It's not about her. You are missing something.


What I'm missing is that a few of us have been talking about the article.

And a few others have been talking about what they wanted to see in the article. The simplest reason is that they identify with the author's emotional state.

Which, of course explains why me saying the same thing over and over again (it's not about the libido or the hall pass as a concept but about the self-centered way of going about it) simply gets ignored.


----------



## Marduk

FrenchFry said:


> Why do you find it interesting? It's all over the place here: Stop smothering your partner. Give your partner space to find you interesting. Stop overwhelming your partner with your needs. If you are the warmer partner, turn down the temperature.
> 
> It's a little counter-intuitive but it works wonders in tons of circumstances. If her husband came here, it would be one of the first pieces of advice he would get to back off of her.
> 
> That part is the easiest to explain to me, honestly.


Interesting.

My ex wife said the same thing. So I did.

Her response was to start ****ing someone else.


----------



## EllisRedding

marduk said:


> Interesting.
> 
> My ex wife said the same thing. So I did.
> 
> Her response was to start ****ing someone else.


So she offered herself the free pass?


----------



## Icey181

FrenchFry said:


> Why do you find it interesting? It's all over the place here: Stop smothering your partner. Give your partner space to find you interesting. Stop overwhelming your partner with your needs. If you are the warmer partner, turn down the temperature.
> 
> It's a little counter-intuitive but it works wonders in tons of circumstances. If her husband came here, it would be one of the first pieces of advice he would get to back off of her.
> 
> That part is the easiest to explain to me, honestly.


Because of the timetable combined with the supposed seriousness of her deep-seated _hatred_ and resentment.

The terminology she used in her emails with Blossom made her resentments sound considerably worse than the original blog post.

I have a hard time thinking that a women who was using the phrase "hatred" to describe portions of her marriage, identified nearly every single thing in her life as a source of insurmountable stress, and offered to let her husband to have sex with another women suddenly lost all of those resentments and regained both her emotional attachment and sexual attraction to her husband because he pulled back from her for a few days or two weeks.

Something is wrong.

Either she heavily overstated her stressors and resentments, which makes her offer of the Free Pass just cruel and manipulative or she heavily understated the fallout from the "Free Pass" and uncomfortable conversation which calls into question her portrayal of the Free Pass as an effective and successful tactic.

Part of the 180 is demonstrating to your partner that _you have independent value and can leave the relationship if necessary_. It is about establishing an independent source of happiness and self-worth independent from the emotionally detached spouse.

But it takes _time_.

My take is simple: she was not over-stating her stressors and resentment. Those were very real and radically negative feelings.

I think she is borderline narcissistic, completely de-prioritized her husband, which deepened the emotional detachment between them, and then _his_ emotional reaction to her Free Pass suggestion hit her in the face with the effect said emotional detachment was having on _him_ for probably the first time in years.

The Free Pass was not what caused the relationship to change.

The fall-out from the emotional nuke she dropped on her marriage is what did it.

I think she wanted space from her husband…and never realized that space from her husband likely meant detaching from the marriage _to her husband_.

But, she has a vested interest in never updating her blog to reflect that.


----------



## Anon1111

Icey181 said:


> The whole outrage at this blog is basically her statement/advice that a marriage devoid of intimacy can survive for years on end in a stasis _until she decides she wants it back_.


Walter Sobchack: "Life does not stop and start at your convenience, you miserable piece of ****"


----------



## Icey181

Also, looking at this situation form her POV, it seems like the primary Emotional Need she was not getting was _emotional attachment_ not space.

Space does not improve bonds of emotional attachment, it stresses and breaks them.

If space was all she needed then every time her husband came back from a long-work week(s) away, she would have been all over him.

She was not.

The blog is too easy.

She has deep seated resentments that would not be fixed by anything short of individual counseling or a sudden sea-change in her view of the state of her marriage and what she valued long-term.


----------



## Marduk

FrenchFry said:


> Why would we talk about what is outside of the article?
> 
> No event happens in a vacuum. I looked at her blog and found several reasons why this woman would do something that seems unreasonable on it's face.
> 
> I do not see any reason to treat this blogger as mentally incapable or personality disordered. There is almost no way to do so online by dissecting blog posts.
> 
> Because I looked at her blog I see that there are actually several factors that could be involved in her emotional processing. All of these have been pointed out and chewed over in the thread which would lead to a decision that seems both rational and irrational--or in other words totally human.
> 
> You are not getting ignored. We disagree on the externals.


Non sequitur.

I have time and time again cited only what she has said. They are not externals, they are intrinsic. 

If you disagree, you disagree with what she has said, which is what I have taken to be axiomatic.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Icey181

FrenchFry said:


> I know we are at an impasse because of how we deal with communication in our life but I will reiterate what I see.
> 
> Her actions (as described) in the aftermath perfectly align with a woman who was smothered sexually while misaligned emotionally.


And do you honestly think some physical and emotional detachment from her husband would fix that in short order?

I am trying to figure out a time-table between the blog post and her emails with Blossom…and it feels like she went from "Have Sex with someone else," to "We are back to normal," in less than a month.


----------



## Icey181

FrenchFry said:


> That is a great question, what is the timetable?
> 
> But yes, I think resentment can vanish in an instant if 1) the actions cease 2) the person can let go.


Well, it certainly sounds like the actions ceased. From the emails it seems her husband pulled back pretty quickly after the Free Pass discussion.

However, she does not strike me as the "can let it go" type of personality.

She could not even handle dealing with email exchanges with people who disagreed with her…


----------



## Marduk

FrenchFry said:


> We will continue to talk past each other because of our perspective.


I don't think it's a perspective problem. 

Can you point out one quote of hers that supports your position?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## ocotillo

AA,



always_alone said:


> I don't think this is a fair generalization. One can be both a clear thinker and employ many different communication styles and literary devices. And sometimes, communicating in even and agreeable tones can mean that the person that we are speaking to fails to appreciate just how important or significant the issue is to us..


One can indeed express themselves in a variety of less than literal communication styles and still be a clear thinker, but reasoning via literary devices invariably leads to faulty conclusions. 

Please note that I'm not actually making that claim about the author. I'm simply responding to a series of either/or(s) on this thread.




always_alone said:


> Now granted, she is, in her blog...


The article in question did not appear on the author's personal blog. 

(IMO) That would be an entirely different kettle of fish too. 




always_alone said:


> ...speaking to us, rather than to her husband, and so that's a different kettle of fish. Nonetheless, that she didn't take the time to spell out her thought process in academic prose, or glossed over a very large number of details in how the actual story played out, doesn't mean that she isn't aware of and attentive to those details in practice.





always_alone said:


> And again, I think this is an assumption, not necessarily a claim of what she actually did. Many people read her as making a unilateral decision, and I would agree with that in so far as she lost her libido (unilaterally?) and that made her not want sex with him. But the other claims re "he won't leave me" and "he won't take my hall pass" and "he will be waiting for me". How do we know these are unilateral? My guess is that her confidence in asserting them comes from what he himself said in the conversations.



To both of your observations above, I would say that the story itself leads away from that idea. 

The basic conflict in the story: His pressuring behavior, her observation that the problem is unfair to both of them, his two point syllogism equating sex with love, her assertion that marriage can survive without romance, etc., etc., practically become nonsensical if the couple have had this conversation and reached agreement.

I'd also like to clarify that when I use the term, "unilateral" I'm not talking about ED or postpartum loss of libido. I'm talking about one person or the other declaring explicitly or implicitly that their view of marriage is all that really matters.

Here again, I think the author's choice of words and expressions is telling. She consistently refers to sex as either 'effing or screwing. She dismisses the opinion of experts as psychobabble. She states her views in declarative rather than conditional statements. She quite evidently did not (And probably still doesn't) understand what was wrong with the whole idea of the hall pass in first place. All this screams an absolute lack of understanding beyond the confines of her own mind. 

Now her husband may very well be as ignorant of the workings of her mind as she is of his, but he's not the author of an article entitled "The Night I Told My Wife To Go Confide Her Deepest Feelings to Someone Else and Leave Me The Hell Alone."  I'm sure an article of that type would get the criticism it deserves.


----------



## Marduk

FrenchFry said:


> Sure:
> 
> Yucky condition diminishes sex drive.
> 
> 
> 
> Several posts talking about events when her husband is away and her mixed feelings within
> 
> 1 2 3 4*
> 
> Then contradict all "my kids suck" posts with all "my kids are really blessings" posts, her posts talking about how she does like sex with her husband when he is home, all posts about her insecurities etc.
> 
> I have a very different picture than you do of her.


Interesting that you pulled in other articles in an attempt to bolster your opinion instead of draw upon the piece in question. I assume by this maneuver that this means that there isn't, in fact, any support for your position in the original source material.

At any rate, not only do the linked articles fail to bolster your position, they do so spectacularly. You provide one quote, and yet link to many articles.

First, I'll respond to the quote.



> Husband is used to her style of conversation
> 
> I could hear him rolling his eyes on the other side of the phone, “Why not now?”
> He’s used to my insecurities.
> 
> “Because I’m old, spoiled milk.”
> 
> Matter-of-factly he said, “Well, I got news for you, you’re not young anymore. You think you are. But you’re not.”


You did not provide a link that I could find to put this into it's context, but perhaps it's unnecessary.

#1 she projects her insecurities onto his behaviour and exaggerates (hearing his eye rolling) -- classical narcissism attributes. 

#2 she isn't young any more. And yet, he is still there. This makes the core concept that he's only wanting a young and hot **** buddy inconsistent. And yet... she seems unconvinced.

Now, let's dig into the articles, shall we?

And I quote:


> I hate surgery while "sleeping" because I have no control.


Interesting. She faces major surgery... and this is the issue? A loss of control? Fascinating.

What's one of the core traits of narcissism? A high need to control.

And yet, her _most_ encouraging line is still very telling:


> Ultimately, I figured out that if I'm overwhelmed with pain, I can't do all of my jobs well - which includes my largest role of being a good parent.


Which reminds me. What's absent from this article? 

Oh, ya. Any mention of how her husband and kids are dealing with being afraid of their wife and mommy going into major surgery.

Hmm.

That's article one.

Would you like me to continue?


----------



## Marduk

Repeating yourself isn't an argument.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Marduk

FrenchFry said:


> Actions speak louder than words.
> 
> Where would you like to go from here?


Where I'm at is where I am at based on the data that I have been provided. I believe it is a rational conclusion with little evidence that suggests otherwise.

The conclusion that I'm at right now regarding this thread is that misguided mama has triggered an emotional response that has resonated with many of you. And because of her fluent and articulate writing style, she is liked and admired.

It is difficult to fault one we like and admire, especially one that emotionally resonates with you. It's a one-two punch that allows one to overlook many things.

Which, of course, is part of the underlying control and survival mechanism for such people.


----------



## always_alone

marduk said:


> Her response is castrating. Not her emotions. Which has been said to you at least 99 times by this point.
> 
> You don't hear it because you don't want to.
> 
> This is clearly about you and not the article.


He did not at all offer any solutions. All that happened was she said he wouldn't flinch if she did go out and hire some staff. This is not an offer of a solution that she rejected, as much as you would like to paint it this way.

And seriously, if he is that easily castrated, then they have *much* bigger problems in their relationship.


----------



## always_alone

marduk said:


> Where I'm at is where I am at based on the data that I have been provided. I believe it is a rational conclusion with little evidence that suggests otherwise.
> 
> The conclusion that I'm at right now regarding this thread is that misguided mama has triggered an emotional response that has resonated with many of you. And because of her fluent and articulate writing style, she is liked and admired.
> 
> It is difficult to fault one we like and admire, especially one that emotionally resonates with you. It's a one-two punch that allows one to overlook many things.
> 
> Which, of course, is part of the underlying control and survival mechanism for such people.


I have this sudden strong sense that you don't understand women (people??) very well.

I don't think she is terribly fluent or articulate, personally. Granted I have read only he one article, and haven't bothered to look any deeper than that, and what's been posted here. But I don't find this article terribly well written or compelling, and will probably never seek out her writing, especially since I am absolutely *not* her demographic.

I just think she doesn't deserve the character maligning that has happened on this thread. I really don't think there is evidence that she has been unilateral, lacking in consideration for her husband's feelings, or any of the other things you seem to be so convinced are apt descriptions.


----------



## always_alone

FrenchFry said:


> It's also difficult to get someone out of a box once you have put them inside of there.
> 
> She's also triggered an emotional response in you as well which you are covering with arguments of rationality.
> 
> Since you do not like her, you are willing to find fault in everything she says, including perfectly innocuous statements.
> 
> This is also controlling. We are stuck at judgement.


QFT! Exactly!


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> He did not at all offer any solutions. All that happened was she said he wouldn't flinch if she did go out and hire some staff. This is not an offer of a solution that she rejected, as much as you would like to paint it this way.


I quote the article in question:


> He'd wouldn't flinch if I hired a cleaning company. If I ordered take-out every night. If I was never successful in my career.


This is established and acknowledged by the author. Ergo, it is known as an alternative positioned by him.


> And seriously, if he is that easily castrated, then they have *much* bigger problems in their relationship.


While I have my problems with her husband as well, I would feel very much emotionally castrated by this conversation. However my response would likely be very, very different.


----------



## Marduk

FrenchFry said:


> It's also difficult to get someone out of a box once you have put them inside of there.
> 
> She's also triggered an emotional response in you as well which you are covering with arguments of rationality.
> 
> Since you do not like her, you are willing to find fault in everything she says, including perfectly innocuous statements.
> 
> This is also controlling. We are stuck at judgement.


Finally a great response and the one I was looking for!

Yes, I've put her in a box. Yes, I now see many things coloured with that perspective; specifically with the test "does this confirm or deny my working hypothesis?"

And one might say this is a confirmation bias to which I'm actively seeking disproof based upon the _data in question and not how anyone feels about it._

You're right. I don't like her. I find her snide, manipulative, self-serving, and a pretty ****ty human being.

However, with that all aside, what I'm really looking for is a rational appeal of how I'm wrong. And "I like her" isn't good enough.

Nor is "I don't like her" which is why I've gone to the source material.


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> I have this sudden strong sense that you don't understand women (people??) very well.


This is perhaps true. I don't think it is, but I'm also reminded of the following quote by Feynman:
"If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics."

Substitute women for quantum mechanics, and you very well could be right.


> I don't think she is terribly fluent or articulate, personally. Granted I have read only he one article, and haven't bothered to look any deeper than that, and what's been posted here. But I don't find this article terribly well written or compelling, and will probably never seek out her writing, especially since I am absolutely *not* her demographic.


She's a published author and a more skillful writer than I am. I actually admire that in her.


> I just think she doesn't deserve the character maligning that has happened on this thread. I really don't think there is evidence that she has been unilateral, lacking in consideration for her husband's feelings, or any of the other things you seem to be so convinced are apt descriptions.


The maligning wouldn't have happened from me if she wouldn't have been all "look at me and how well it all worked out" about it. That's a core problem.


----------



## Marduk

FrenchFry said:


> I'm glad you liked that!
> 
> So since we are at an impasse and we probably aren't going to convince each other of anything and while I enjoy a good bout of internet fighting, I'm pretty much done here.


I'll say one thing for you, FF. 

I respect you.


----------



## always_alone

marduk said:


> I quote the article in question:
> 
> 
> This is established and acknowledged by the author. Ergo, it is known as an alternative positioned by him.


Even that weaker inference is not supported by what she said. Clearly she has thought of them, and knows him well enough (hopefully!) to know what is likely reaction would be. Doesn't mean he has put them forward as solutions, or that these particular solutions are all that realistic. Hiring staff comes with its own pressures, time sucks, and hassles.


----------



## Faithful Wife

There is no right or wrong when you are discussing opinions.


----------



## Marduk

FrenchFry said:


> You won't find a rational appeal! So there you have it.


Dammit.

I was enjoying the debate.

Next time.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> There is no right or wrong when you are discussing opinions.


You're back.

And I disagree.

Mostly because it's Friday.


----------



## always_alone

marduk said:


> And one might say this is a confirmation bias to which I'm actively seeking disproof based upon the _data in question and not how anyone feels about it._


Very difficult, indeed impossible, to disprove something doesn't exist or didn't happen. What would you use for evidence?


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> Very difficult, indeed impossible, to disprove something doesn't exist or didn't happen. What would you use for evidence?


I'm talking about something as simple as a clear act outside the pattern of behaviour that I've established.


----------



## always_alone

ocotillo said:


> The basic conflict in the story: His pressuring behavior, her observation that the problem is unfair to both of them, his two point syllogism equating sex with love, her assertion that marriage can survive without romance, etc., etc., practically become nonsensical if the couple have had this conversation and reached agreement.


But that's what stories are: narrative arc with context, conflict, and resolution. If that's nonsensical, then all stories are nonsensical, no?

And, I mean, she was hardly asserting that marriage can survive without romance. She said it was coming back. As far as I can tell, the argument here is simply about the timing she proposed.



ocotillo said:


> I'd also like to clarify that when I use the term, "unilateral" I'm not talking about ED or postpartum loss of libido. I'm talking about one person or the other declaring explicitly or implicitly that their view of marriage is all that really matters.


I honestly don't see her as doing that. Of emphasizing and focusing on her POV, yes, but not of saying that only her view matters. Just because she doesn't want to hear another guilt trip about why she's broken doesn't mean she has no sense of other's feelings.



ocotillo said:


> Now her husband may very well be as ignorant of the workings of her mind as she is of his, but he's not the author of an article entitled "The Night I Told My Wife To Go Confide Her Deepest Feelings to Someone Else and Leave Me The Hell Alone."  I'm sure an article of that type would get the criticism it deserves.


This is a bit funny to me because I see guys say stuff like this all the time, indeed it is a big joke/truism that men need to hide out in their man caves to get away from this sort of stuff


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> Even that weaker inference is not supported by what she said. Clearly she has thought of them, and knows him well enough (hopefully!) to know what is likely reaction would be. Doesn't mean he has put them forward as solutions, or that these particular solutions are all that realistic. Hiring staff comes with its own pressures, time sucks, and hassles.


Can you talk more about that?


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> But that's what stories are: narrative arc with context, conflict, and resolution. If that's nonsensical, then all stories are nonsensical, no?


That's not quite what he said and an awefully big abstraction.



> And, I mean, she was hardly asserting that marriage can survive without romance. She said it was coming back. As far as I can tell, the argument here is simply about the timing she proposed.


5 years isn't a timing issue.

It's an oath of celibacy.



> I honestly don't see her as doing that. Of emphasizing and focusing on her POV, yes, but not of saying that only her view matters. Just because she doesn't want to hear another guilt trip about why she's broken doesn't mean she has no sense of other's feelings.


Discussion or even anything past a one line acknowledgement is remarkably absent from this article or a dozen or so others I've read.

And absent from her email responses.

How do you account for this?



> This is a bit funny to me because I see guys say stuff like this all the time, indeed it is a big joke/truism that men need to hide out in their man caves to get away from this sort of stuff


If a man said he's heading down to his man cave for five years I'd say the same thing.

Normally I go there to cool off and regain my sense of rationality. It normally takes as long as it takes to pour and drink a dram of scotch, rack and drop an 8-ball table, and stare at a sexy picture of my wife long enough to realize that I'm being an ass.

So, somewhere between 15 min and an hour depending how far my head is stuck up my ass.


----------



## Faithful Wife

The cool thing about having a personal blog is that you get to say whatever YOU want, because it is YOUR voice and opinion you are blogging about...and what anyone else thinks doesn't mean squat.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> The cool thing about having a personal blog is that you get to say whatever YOU want, because it is YOUR voice and opinion you are blogging about...and what anyone else thinks doesn't mean squat.


That's kind of the point.

What anyone else thinks doesn't mean squat.

Except if they like me! Everybody, love me!

The rest of you are just haters.


----------



## Faithful Wife

People read her, that's how she knows they like her. If nobody read her, she would know either her writing was bad or nothing she had to say was relevant to anyone.

And yes....newflash?....a blogger wants to be liked for their writing.

Who cares?


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> People read her, that's how she knows they like her. If nobody read her, she would know either her writing was bad or nothing she had to say was relevant to anyone.
> 
> And yes....newflash?....a blogger wants to be liked for their writing.
> 
> Who cares?


I'm glad you're back FW, but I don't really want to go back and unwind this whole thread.

My core problem is that I don't think she handled it well, and yet, it appears to be celebrated by her as a good way to deal with it.


----------



## ocotillo

AA



always_alone said:


> But that's what stories are: narrative arc with context, conflict, and resolution. If that's nonsensical, then all stories are nonsensical, no?


What I'm saying (Or at least attempting to say) is that the conflict in the story is a direct result of neither of them understanding each other. 

If Mr. Hosseini actually understands where his wife is coming from: --That postpartum loss of libido is pretty common, especially in the circumstances that she (elsewhere) describes, then why the pressure?

Conversely if Ms. Hosseini actually understands where her husband is coming from: --That in the absence of sex, his feelings of romantic love for her do start to wither and die, then why rub lemon juice in a paper cut _vis-à-vis_ the hall pass? 

It really seems to me that a key element of the story is the lack of anything resembling the prior meeting of the minds that you've speculated on




always_alone said:


> And, I mean, she was hardly asserting that marriage can survive without romance.



Well I guess we must be taking away different things from these statements:



> I refuse to believe that romance wholly makes up a marriage. I know there is great stuff here. There is more than enough good stuff to sustain us, as a couple, as a family while the romance of our relationship takes a rendezvous...






always_alone said:


> I honestly don't see her as doing that. Of emphasizing and focusing on her POV, yes, but not of saying that only her view matters.


I would say that it is a practical impossibility to take your spouse's viewpoint into consideration if you have zero understanding or inkling of it. Your own viewpoint would by default be the only one and in the case, the proof of that lies in the hall pass idea itself.





always_alone said:


> This is a bit funny to me because I see guys say stuff like this all the time, indeed it is a big joke/truism that men need to hide out in their man caves to get away from this sort of stuff


Well I'm not going to defend the bad behavior of other men. There's too damn much of it.


----------



## always_alone

ocotillo said:


> AA
> 
> What I'm saying (Or at least attempting to say) is that the conflict in the story is a direct result of neither of them understanding each other.
> 
> If Mr. Hosseini actually understands where his wife is coming from: --That postpartum loss of libido is pretty common, especially in the circumstances that she (elsewhere) describes, then why the pressure?
> 
> Conversely if Ms. Hosseini actually understands where her husband is coming from: --That in the absence of sex, his feelings of romantic love for her do start to wither and die, then why rub lemon juice in a paper cut _vis-à-vis_ the hall pass?


And what I'm saying, or at least attempting to say is that like any story, the narrative has an arc. It was pressure and building resentment, there was a blowout, and then a resolution of sorts. It's encapsulated in a nutshell, but the unfolding of the drama was over the course of some time.

You don't think she learned something from his reaction? I'm betting she did. You don't think he learned something from her blowout? I'm betting he did. 

Is it a perfect resolution? Who cares!


----------



## Faithful Wife

There are tens of thousands of personal opinion blogs...no matter who you are, there are some or even many personal bloggers out there who are saying something that would deeply offend you, they are belittling your lifestyle and values, and they are proclaiming things you would vehemently disagree with. 

The fact that this post by this blogger creates such emotional reactions in everyone on all sides is pure magic to a blogger. She doesn't have to care what anyone thinks about her relationship, her choices, or her character.

There are some bloggers who have "fake" personal opinion blogs...where they deliberately create posts they hope to stir emotion with in others...but the real deal is that they are actually just good writers, and so they are honing their craft by seeing if they can write from the voice of a person who doesn't actually believe the things they do or have the type of life they do. I'm only pointing this out to say that some pieces of writing we come across are not even the writer's true opinion.

Writing is an art. You can write hoping to make people happy, or turned on, or pizzed off, or to call people to action, or to make them laugh, or to take the reader on a fun drama filled ride, or to help the reader navigate their own feelings about something.

In terms of art, this blogger created an amazing storm of emotional response, and that response stands alongside her writing, so that all of it combined is actually the art. If you look at the rest of her artistic work (which includes her "look" and her persona) you see an even bigger picture of why this blog post is part of her overall artist's body of work. (And the thing about putting this post on her resume, it is an artistic resume, I assume? I did not read the resume, but a writer's resume will always have references of published or popular writing they have done...it is not the same as a professional resume where you are trying to get a job at a company...you WANT to hilight your most impressive writing work on a writer's resume regardless of the subject).

The actual character of the artist is rarely known through their art.


----------



## Wazza

A couple of comments on the discussion of the last 24 hours. 

Marduke, what's the point of focussing on the one blog to the exclusion of all else? The woman has written other blogs, and they potentially provide context. What does it possibly achieve to exclude other information that is clearly relevant. 

To the guys generally....if a large group of women on this thread all bring the same perspective, you don't have to 100% agree with it to recognise it as an opportunity to better understand their world view. (And in fact if you engage with it, there is a certain amount of truth in it).

The sort of person who can't be bothered replying to emails from people who disagree with her.....strikes me as a person who values her time. I think I would be like that. I expect she writes to provoke a reaction, and knows that she's going to get it. I am not sure she cares about communication with those she provokes.

Finally, why does anyone assume people are reasonable, logical, or consistent? My many years on earth have taught me that the exact opposite is true.

I still think she's a click bait author. If I'm wrong, then I have to seriously question how a marriage could get into that level of difficulty and suddenly be all right a short time later. There is no way that blog is an unemotional factual narrative.


----------



## Marduk

Wazza said:


> A couple of comments on the discussion of the last 24 hours.
> 
> Marduke, what's the point of focussing on the one blog to the exclusion of all else? The woman has written other blogs, and they potentially provide context. What does it possibly achieve to exclude other information that is clearly relevant.


It was a debate over what one person read in the article vs another.

As it turns out, much of the debate wasn't about what she actually wrote at all.



> To the guys generally....if a large group of women on this thread all bring the same perspective, you don't have to 100% agree with it to recognise it as an opportunity to better understand their world view. (And in fact if you engage with it, there is a certain amount of truth in it).
> 
> The sort of person who can't be bothered replying to emails from people who disagree with her.....strikes me as a person who values her time. I think I would be like that. I expect she writes to provoke a reaction, and knows that she's going to get it. I am not sure she cares about communication with those she provokes.
> 
> Finally, why does anyone assume people are reasonable, logical, or consistent? My many years on earth have taught me that the exact opposite is true.
> 
> I still think she's a click bait author. If I'm wrong, then I have to seriously question how a marriage could get into that level of difficulty and suddenly be all right a short time later. There is no way that blog is an unemotional factual narrative.


Agreed.

How do you reconcile the notion that some people will however read it as advice on how to successfully negotiate a similar issue?


----------



## Cosmos

marduk said:


> How do you reconcile the notion that *some people will however read it as advice on how to successfully negotiate a similar issue?*




I very seriously doubt it... 

Most women are more likely to see MM's blog for what it is; a vent fest.


----------



## Marduk

Cosmos said:


> [/B]
> 
> I very seriously doubt it...
> 
> Most women are more likely to see MM's blog for what it is; a vent fest.


I sincerely hope you're right.

Although reading this thread, I have my doubts.


----------



## Cosmos

marduk said:


> I sincerely hope you're right.
> 
> Although reading this thread, I have my doubts.


Again, this is about perception... I haven't gained the impression that anyone on this thread actually thinks that the HP was a good idea... Some of us might understand how MM's frame of mind might have 'driven' her to say what she did, but do we think that it was the wisest and most constructive way of handling things? No.


----------



## Faithful Wife

From MM's blog:

"I'm a former television producer, that traded the newsroom for the playroom. I'm back to writing, but with peanut butter stains on my shirt and a wine tolerance like never before.

(snip)

I'm documenting the raw moments with kids. I don't sugar-coat, I'm not romantic about it all, and I use the "F" word a lot for emphasis."


No where does she claim to be giving others advice. If others read her personal experiences and creative writing as advice, that's on them.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> From MM's blog:
> 
> "I'm a former television producer, that traded the newsroom for the playroom. I'm back to writing, but with peanut butter stains on my shirt and a wine tolerance like never before.
> 
> (snip)
> 
> I'm documenting the raw moments with kids. I don't sugar-coat, I'm not romantic about it all, and I use the "F" word a lot for emphasis."
> 
> 
> No where does she claim to be giving others advice. If others read her personal experiences and creative writing as advice, that's on them.


FW, if you wrote in a self-celebratory way about something destructive you did with your husband and how great it all turned out, how would you feel if someone read that and thought "oh, what a great idea?"

And... if she were being honest, she'd be honest about the good and the bad.

At any rate "I am not a role model" is not a defence against anything.


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> 1. FW, if you wrote in a self-celebratory way about something destructive you did with your husband and how great it all turned out, how would you feel if someone read that and thought "oh, what a great idea?"
> 
> 2. And... if she were being honest, she'd be honest about the good and the bad.
> 
> 3. At any rate "I am not a role model" is not a defence against anything.


1. I have written articles that others feel would be destructive to marriage or to one or the other of us...not in the same vein as MM but definitely things that some or even many people consider really bad stuff for relationships. If someone read that and thought "oh what a great idea?" I would just feel they could relate. I would not take responsibility for what they choose to do with what I write on my personal blog.

In fact right now I am working on a piece about my separated marriage set up. And even though hearing about my experience might actually sound like good advice for some people and some people could probably really thrive in a situation like mine (and we are actually doing great!), many others would no doubt feel that a separated marriage is doomed and both spouses might have affairs and the sanctity of tradition and blah blah blah. Many people could certainly be pizzed off that I would write this article as if it were a good thing for marriage. I don't care about what these people will think. If it sounds like a horrid thing to them, they can stop reading my article, leave me nasty comments, or whatever. But it won't make me feel even remotely responsible for their feelings after they read my article, whether they hate me and blast me with negativity, or try to interpret my article as advice and f*ck up their relationships.

2. I never write on my blog about the bad parts of my relationship. Why would I? Who would I "owe" that to? Who says how honest or inclusive of facts anyone has to be on a personal blog? Do you read political blogs from people in whatever party most opposes your chosen party and get angry about what they write, too? (I know some people do get mad about that, too so this is a sincere question).

3. A personal writer's blog needs no defense from anyone, for anything. A blog is where YOU get to write whatever YOU want, and people can read it or not. And that's where your responsibility ends.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Marduk, what I'm reading in your posts is actually something more like empathy for those whose spouses have sexually rejected them.

Which makes me think that your issue with MM's blog post is not that she should be held responsible for giving bad advice, but rather that it touched a deep wound in you. And you know that wound is shared by many, and specifically many at TAM.

I also have empathy for that wound in everyone who has it, and part of my blog writing attempts to deal with that pain and discuss ways to avoid it, or to turn rejection back into receptivity again somehow. Or how to choose relationships based on sexual compatibility. 

That pain of sexual rejection and how common it is was what prompted me to do the sexlessness survey (which I also posted here), and then use the results to write 2 blogs posts about how much sexlessness sucks. One of the posts was just first hand accounts of how badly the higher drive partner hurts all the time, due to the feelings that come with sexual rejection. My point was to help raise awareness of how that pain is very much real and it messes people up. 

So I get it.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> Marduk, what I'm reading in your posts is actually something more like empathy for those whose spouses have sexually rejected them.
> 
> Which makes me think that your issue with MM's blog post is not that she should be held responsible for giving bad advice, but rather that it touched a deep wound in you. And you know that wound is shared by many, and specifically many at TAM.


Entirely possible. In fact, probable.

Which is why I kept asking for those that disagreed to actually find something in the source material that indicated that I was off base.

I, myself, went through more than a dozen of her posts on her blog and twitter feed. I tried to have an open mind, but I'm aware of the power of cognitive bias. I didn't find a single mention of her husband's or child's emotional state anywhere. Only their behaviour and how it makes her feel.



> I also have empathy for that wound in everyone who has it, and part of my blog writing attempts to deal with that pain and discuss ways to avoid it, or to turn rejection back into receptivity again somehow. Or how to choose relationships based on sexual compatibility.
> 
> That pain of sexual rejection and how common it is was what prompted me to do the sexlessness survey (which I also posted here), and then use the results to write 2 blogs posts about how much sexlessness sucks. One of the posts was just first hand accounts of how badly the higher drive partner hurts all the time, due to the feelings that come with sexual rejection. My point was to help raise awareness of how that pain is very much real and it messes people up.
> 
> So I get it.


Where was the survey?


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> 1. I have written articles that others feel would be destructive to marriage or to one or the other of us...not in the same vein as MM but definitely things that some or even many people consider really bad stuff for relationships. If someone read that and thought "oh what a great idea?" I would just feel they could relate. I would not take responsibility for what they choose to do with what I write on my personal blog.
> 
> In fact right now I am working on a piece about my separated marriage set up. And even though hearing about my experience might actually sound like good advice for some people and some people could probably really thrive in a situation like mine (and we are actually doing great!), many others would no doubt feel that a separated marriage is doomed and both spouses might have affairs and the sanctity of tradition and blah blah blah. Many people could certainly be pizzed off that I would write this article as if it were a good thing for marriage. I don't care about what these people will think. If it sounds like a horrid thing to them, they can stop reading my article, leave me nasty comments, or whatever. But it won't make me feel even remotely responsible for their feelings after they read my article, whether they hate me and blast me with negativity, or try to interpret my article as advice and f*ck up their relationships.
> 
> 2. I never write on my blog about the bad parts of my relationship. Why would I? Who would I "owe" that to? Who says how honest or inclusive of facts anyone has to be on a personal blog? Do you read political blogs from people in whatever party most opposes your chosen party and get angry about what they write, too? (I know some people do get mad about that, too so this is a sincere question).
> 
> 3. A personal writer's blog needs no defense from anyone, for anything. A blog is where YOU get to write whatever YOU want, and people can read it or not. And that's where your responsibility ends.


Yes!

It doesn't free you from other people being able to criticize, though.

Freedom of speech isn't freedom from being called out for being wrong.

And I've read your blog... although I find some of it questionable, I do not find the "celebrate me, b1tches" tone anywhere.

Although, again, that might be cognitive bias.

Help me understand the "separated marriage." Haven't talked to you in a bit.


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> Where was the survey?


http://talkaboutmarriage.com/ladies-lounge/224338-sexlessness-survey-my-blog.html


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> Help me understand the "separated marriage." Haven't talked to you in a bit.


http://talkaboutmarriage.com/genera...0913-alternative-relationships-marriages.html


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> Yes!
> 
> It doesn't free you from other people being able to criticize, though.
> 
> Freedom of speech isn't freedom from being called out for being wrong.


As a blogger, why would I care if anyone thinks I'm "wrong" or not? It is my blog, my personal voice and opinion and experiences.

People are free to think I'm wrong or criticize and I'm free to not give a sh*t.


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> Entirely possible. In fact, probable.
> 
> Which is why I kept asking for those that disagreed to actually find something in the source material that indicated that I was off base


This is confusing. You agree that what you are probably reacting to is your empathy for those who have felt the sting of that sexual rejection...but then you want someone to find something in the source material that indicates you were off base? Off base on what, that you felt that sting of pain? It isn't her responsibility that you felt that sting. That is something coming from within you that got triggered.

So if you mean you want someone to say "yeah that obviously hurt her husband and we can see why reading the story would trigger others who have been hurt in that way", then yes, I agree with you, I can see that. Others here have said that, too. But your pain or anyone else's pain here from being triggered like that is not the blogger's responsibility in any way.


----------



## ocotillo

AA,



always_alone said:


> And what I'm saying, or at least attempting to say is that like any story, the narrative has an arc. It was pressure and building resentment, there was a blowout, and then a resolution of sorts. It's encapsulated in a nutshell, but the unfolding of the drama was over the course of some time.


I don't disagree with that, AA, but the pressure was internal to the storyteller and the arc of the story was the point when the guilt was lifted off of her shoulders via the offer of the hall pass. Maybe that in and of itself was therapeutic enough to tip the scales and in that way, I can kinda, sorta see what you and others have been saying. 

It is still almost entirely an introspective drama though and the conflict between the couple's competing needs is just as raw at the end of the story as it was at the beginning.





always_alone said:


> You don't think she learned something from his reaction? I'm betting she did. You don't think he learned something from her blowout? I'm betting he did.


Based on the way this issue polarizes a conversation (This thread being a case in point) it strikes me as every bit as deep a divide as liberal vs. conservative; atheist vs. Christian; Western though vs. Eastern thought. 

It would be great if the conversation had produced a sudden epiphany, but I don't see a lot of that among couples in real life.


----------



## always_alone

ocotillo said:


> It is still almost entirely an introspective drama though and the conflict between the couple's competing needs is just as raw at the end of the story as it was at the beginning.


Yes, absolutely. It's an introspective drama, and it's about her, not him. But rather than seeing that as proof of her narcissism or unwillingness to consider another's perspective, I see it as simply the story told from her perspective.

Would you rather that she end on a note of self-flagellation? "look how terrible I am for mistreating my husband" or "I am so broken, and cannot be fixed" or "I will grit my teeth and think of the Queen because I know this is what he needs"

I can see why you and some others here would prefer that the drama end with his needs as the winning priority. I also have some understanding of why it can't always work out that way.

Just because the resolution isn't to your liking doesn't mean there isn't one, or that there weren't lessons learned along the way. That is to say, her feelings are (self) validated in this article, but it"s not like she isn't aware of his or isn't thinking of his needs, or that their competing needs will eventually converge. 

And frankly, if it were me, and I were in that situation, the last thing that I would want is my SO tapping his foot impatiently at me, reminding me of my relationship's imminent demise. Indeed, it is exactly this sort of pressure that gives (some) women the notion that all men care about is sex, and that if they are that focused on it, maybe they should just go ahead and get it somewhere else.


----------



## EllisRedding

always_alone said:


> And frankly, if it were me, and I were in that situation, the last thing that I would want is my SO tapping his foot impatiently at me, reminding me of my relationship's imminent demise. Indeed, it is exactly this sort of pressure that gives (some) women the notion that all men care about is sex, and that if they are that focused on it, maybe they should just go ahead and get it somewhere else.


I think the topic of sex can be tricky. In one sense, as you stated, a guy being overly impatient with a lack of sex could lead the woman to believe that is all he wants or cares for. On the other side though, the woman may have a lack of understanding how sex is an important part for a guy (some?) to be emotionally connected to them. Of course as well, it comes down to what is considered impatient. If the belief is that sex can wait for 1,2,5yrs, or however long it may take, I would hope most would agree there is nothing healthy about it, it is nothing more then a roommate relationship.


----------



## ocotillo

AA



always_alone said:


> Would you rather that she end on a note of self-flagellation? "look how terrible I am for mistreating my husband" or "I am so broken, and cannot be fixed" or "I will grit my teeth and think of the Queen because I know this is what he needs"


Not at all. Self-flagellation seems to have been one of the larger facets of the problem to begin with. 




always_alone said:


> I can see why you and some others here would prefer that the drama end with his needs as the winning priority. I also have some understanding of why it can't always work out that way.


You _are_ misunderstanding

My criticism of the article is not and has not been about one side winning and one side losing; one side getting their way and one side not. That just doesn't work in a relationship because a loss for one side is still a loss for the relationship.

A marriage where the woman feels that her husband does not truly love her, but instead views her as an object for the fulfillment of his own selfish pleasure is not going to last. 

Conversely a marriage where the man feels that his wife not only doesn't love him, but is going out of her way to rub his nose in that fact is not going to last either.

When I read stories like this, I'm expecting that something better came out of the crucible than when into it. Purely as an introspective drama, this would be some semblance of growth, maturation, greater insight, understanding, empathy, softening of entrenched positions or the shedding of preconceived notions, prejudices and harmful stereotypes. 

There are many ways an author can convey that message. I didn't see any of it and it's not because I don't know what to look for.





always_alone said:


> And frankly, if it were me, and I were in that situation, the last thing that I would want is my SO tapping his foot impatiently at me, reminding me of my relationship's imminent demise.


--And I've agreed with you that this is a problem. It's the worst possible thing a frustrated HD person can do. It would be great if out of this marital crises, Ms. Hosseini's husband has emerged a better person with more insight into his wife's view of concepts like love. We've both agreed though, that this is not his story. It's her story and consequently the reader is looking for those things in her.


----------



## always_alone

ocotillo said:


> When I read stories like this, I'm expecting that something better came out of the crucible than when into it. Purely as an introspective drama, this would be some semblance of growth, maturation, greater insight, understanding, empathy, softening of entrenched positions or the shedding of preconceived notions, prejudices and harmful stereotypes.
> 
> There are many ways an author can convey that message. I didn't see any of it and it's not because I don't know what to look for.


I guess, then what it boils down to is that I'm more sympathetic to the resolution than you are because you want her insight to be about him, or if not him, at least about the "truth" of successful marriage. Whereas I am fine with it being about her. Women are mostly taught to self-flagellate over such things, and will tend to internalize blame and guilt, adding even more to the resentments. That she doesn't do this, I suspect, taps into a lot of women's desire to not always having to feel broken and defective every time we fail to live up to the expectations of super mom, super wife, superwoman.

That said, I also think that if she were a he, I would also be sympathetic. Pressure, stress, guilt, shame, these are all libido killers, and we as individuals are usually better off when we don't carry heaps of it around unnecessarily. And if an LTR cannot handle some bouts of problems like this, there really isn't much hope for it anyway. We all get sick, get exhausted, grow old, are overly stressed, have to take medicationl, or some such libido killer at some point in our lives. Either we find acceptance of this, and agree our relationships are based on more than sex --or they will end up in the crapper soon enough regardless.


----------



## Wazza

always_alone said:


> I guess, then what it boils down to is that I'm more sympathetic to the resolution than you are because you want her insight to be about him, or if not him, at least about the "truth" of successful marriage. Whereas I am fine with it being about her. Women are mostly taught to self-flagellate over such things, and will tend to internalize blame and guilt, adding even more to the resentments. That she doesn't do this, I suspect, taps into a lot of women's desire to not always having to feel broken and defective every time we fail to live up to the expectations of super mom, super wife, superwoman.
> 
> That said, I also think that if she were a he, I would also be sympathetic. Pressure, stress, guilt, shame, these are all libido killers, and we as individuals are usually better off when we don't carry heaps of it around unnecessarily. And if an LTR cannot handle some bouts of problems like this, there really isn't much hope for it anyway. We all get sick, get exhausted, grow old, are overly stressed, have to take medicationl, or some such libido killer at some point in our lives. Either we find acceptance of this, and agree our relationships are based on more than sex --or they will end up in the crapper soon enough regardless.


Why do you believe anything has been resolved?


----------



## always_alone

Wazza said:


> Why do you believe anything has been resolved?


Well, number one, according to Blossom's correspondence with her, she is again back in the sexual groove, and so all of our hand-wringing here is mostly moot. 

But even just taking the one article on its own, I see the upshot basically being that her relationship will survive this. Her husband refused the hall pass, and she is confident that her connection to him is more than just sex.

A lot of people here have interpreted that as a unilateral decision on her part, a confidence that doesn't even recognize his POV, but I don't see why. She dropped the bomb, they had a conversation, and now she feels reassured that he doesn't want someone else, and that he will still be around for her.

From her POV, I would think all of that hugely reassuring, and there is nothing like being validated and reassured to take the pressure off.


----------



## Wazza

always_alone said:


> Well, number one, according to Blossom's correspondence with her, she is again back in the sexual groove, and so all of our hand-wringing here is mostly moot.
> 
> But even just taking the one article on its own, I see the upshot basically being that her relationship will survive this. Her husband refused the hall pass, and she is confident that her connection to him is more than just sex.
> 
> A lot of people here have interpreted that as a unilateral decision on her part, a confidence that doesn't even recognize his POV, but I don't see why. She dropped the bomb, they had a conversation, and now she feels reassured that he doesn't want someone else, and that he will still be around for her.
> 
> From her POV, I would think all of that hugely reassuring, and there is nothing like being validated and reassured to take the pressure off.


If the guy had pressured her for sex, and she had capitulated, then he might think everything was rosy and she might still feel the same loathing for sexual contact. Nothing resolved, a bomb waiting to explode. Because his needs were met and hers weren't.

The guys on this thread can learn a lot from the ladies about what might have been in the blogger's head when she wrote. But equally, the strong and uniform reaction of many guys here provides insight into the sort of reaction the husband might have.

There is a very strong likelihood that her words will have damaged the relationship. The question is how much. The related question is what will be done to heal it. The true extent of the damage might take a while to emerge.


----------



## always_alone

Wazza said:


> But equally, the strong and uniform reaction of many guys here provides insight into the sort of reaction the husband might have.
> 
> There is a very strong likelihood that her words will have damaged the relationship. The question is how much. The related question is what will be done to heal it. The true extent of the damage might take a while to emerge.


True. Maybe he'll leave her over this, or never forgive her for her hurtful words.

But she's having sex with him, which means that he is also having sex with her. Does a guy who equates sex with love continue to have sex even when he is filled with hurt and resentment?


----------



## Wazza

always_alone said:


> Wazza said:
> 
> 
> 
> But equally, the strong and uniform reaction of many guys here provides insight into the sort of reaction the husband might have.
> 
> There is a very strong likelihood that her words will have damaged the relationship. The question is how much. The related question is what will be done to heal it. The true extent of the damage might take a while to emerge.
> 
> 
> 
> True. Maybe he'll leave her over this, or never forgive her for her hurtful words.
> 
> But she's having sex with him, which means that he is also having sex with her. Does a guy who equates sex with love continue to have sex even when he is filled with hurt and resentment?
Click to expand...

"Equates sex with love" is simplistic to the point where it's misleading. For a guy who expresses his love through sex, he may continue to do so but it is cheapened and damaged to the point where the connection is broken. You try, and try, and then maybe give up.

I think that's why a lot of guys cannot forgive infidelity. They need to get back to a relationship where the emotional connectedness, including sex, is untarnished.

I know it might sometimes seem like the average guy is just a life support system for a penis, but really there is more to us than that.


----------



## Wazza

By the way "hurtful words" is also kind of trite. The danger arises if he comes to believe those words were an expression of her true feelings, rather than an emotive outburst.


----------



## always_alone

Wazza said:


> I know it might sometimes seem like the average guy is just a life support system for a penis, but really there is more to us than that.


I don't think anyone ever suggested this? :scratchhead:


----------



## Wazza

always_alone said:


> I don't think anyone ever suggested this? :scratchhead:


It was an attempt to make the point in a humorous way. You did say "If they are having sex, it must be ok". Why? Because all he wants is to put it in and jiggle it about a bit?

Guys sometimes have to fake it till we make it too.


----------



## Icey181

Wazza said:


> If the guy had pressured her for sex, and she had capitulated, then he might think everything was rosy and she might still feel the same loathing for sexual contact. Nothing resolved, a bomb waiting to explode. Because his needs were met and hers weren't.
> 
> The guys on this thread can learn a lot from the ladies about what might have been in the blogger's head when she wrote. But equally, the strong and uniform reaction of many guys here provides insight into the sort of reaction the husband might have.
> 
> There is a very strong likelihood that her words will have damaged the relationship. The question is how much. The related question is what will be done to heal it. The true extent of the damage might take a while to emerge.


Based on both the blog and Blossom's email exchange it sounds like within 2-3 weeks of the Hall Pass exchange two things happened:

1) Her husband backed off and detached
2) Her libido came back almost immediately

#2 is where I have a problem. After dozens up dozens of HD/LD resentment stories I have read over the last year two things, are very clear:

First, detachment from the HD spouse is rarely done without considerable resentment. And that is without the offer to go fvck another person.

Second, the libido of the suddenly LD spouse _does not rebound_.

If anything there is basically a unanimous report that sex grinds to a screeching halt when the HD spouse ceases initiating. Mainly because the resentments are still there working their magic.

Nowhere did I see a concession that Mrs. H here actually talked about her base-resentments let alone did anything to address them.

I would guess that her primary resentment is that her husband travels for work and that she is forced to be solo for multiple weeks at a time.

Considering none of that seems to have been mentioned, I would bet that she damaged her marriage for little more than a momentary break in stress and that it will be back in full force before long.

I would like to think these two actually had a real conversation and worked things out and that the return to a normal sex life is an indicator of a new understanding between them.

The cynic that I am however, leads me to believe this is emergency, afraid the marriage is doomed without it, sex.


----------



## always_alone

Wazza said:


> It was an attempt to make the point in a humorous way. You did say "If they are having sex, it must be ok". Why? Because all he wants is to put it in and jiggle it about a bit?


I was assuming that if he was deeply wounded and did equate sex with love that his drive would've tanked for her. I mean, if he felt as misunderstood as many of the guys here have expressed, why would he want sex with her? I wouldn't. And I know my SO isn't into sex at all even if he is just slightly annoyed, let alone major hurt. 

Indeed, it's one of the points of discussion here, isn't it? That having sex when you're not feeling it is going to build even more resentment, not make it go away.

Of course, you may be right. Maybe he is filled with hurt and sadness and just trying to get things back where they are. In which case they do still have some pretty big struggles ahead of them. 

When I was thinking resolution, I was only thinking as far as the one episode. I hadn't really considered the full lifetime drama. I am sure, however, that we are missing most of the details. All we really know is, as FW pointed out, what she wants to portray.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> This is confusing. You agree that what you are probably reacting to is your empathy for those who have felt the sting of that sexual rejection...but then you want someone to find something in the source material that indicates you were off base? Off base on what, that you felt that sting of pain? It isn't her responsibility that you felt that sting. That is something coming from within you that got triggered.
> 
> So if you mean you want someone to say "yeah that obviously hurt her husband and we can see why reading the story would trigger others who have been hurt in that way", then yes, I agree with you, I can see that. Others here have said that, too. But your pain or anyone else's pain here from being triggered like that is not the blogger's responsibility in any way.


My question was prove me wrong in finding her behaviour narcissistic.

Because once I went there, I could not find one shred of evidence to suggest otherwise.

In fact, it did nothing but bolster this position. Being aware of cognitive bias, I asked for counter-evidence.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> As a blogger, why would I care if anyone thinks I'm "wrong" or not? It is my blog, my personal voice and opinion and experiences.
> 
> People are free to think I'm wrong or criticize and I'm free to not give a sh*t.


Yes, you are.

But I would find that very telling if that was the path you chose.


----------



## ocotillo

always_alone said:


> I guess, then what it boils down to is that I'm more sympathetic to the resolution than you are because you want her insight to be about him, or if not him, at least about the "truth" of successful marriage. Whereas I am fine with it being about her. Women are mostly taught to self-flagellate over such things, and will tend to internalize blame and guilt, adding even more to the resentments. That she doesn't do this, I suspect, taps into a lot of women's desire to not always having to feel broken and defective every time we fail to live up to the expectations of super mom, super wife, superwoman.
> 
> That said, I also think that if she were a he, I would also be sympathetic. Pressure, stress, guilt, shame, these are all libido killers, and we as individuals are usually better off when we don't carry heaps of it around unnecessarily. And if an LTR cannot handle some bouts of problems like this, there really isn't much hope for it anyway. We all get sick, get exhausted, grow old, are overly stressed, have to take medicationl, or some such libido killer at some point in our lives. Either we find acceptance of this, and agree our relationships are based on more than sex --or they will end up in the crapper soon enough regardless.


Thank you for indulging me in this conversation, AA.

I still tend to think that it boils down to two very different ways of looking at the world that aren't necessarily tied to gender. 

Take, for example your statement here:



always_alone said:


> Her husband refused the hall pass, and she is confident that her connection to him is more than just sex.


One of the interesting things about this discussion is that two people can use the phrase, "..more than just sex" and mean very different things by it. One person may use it to imply a separation between sex and love while another uses it to imply a union between sex and love.

A person holding the former view may interpret the rejection of the hall pass offer as indication that in the grand scheme of things, sex is a relatively unimportant part of the relationship that can be put on hold for period of years, while a person holding the latter view may interpret the rejection of the hall pass offer as indication that sex is too important a part of a relationship and that indulging a hall pass would be forging a new relationship.

When both worldviews lead to the same place (i.e. reassurance that he doesn't want someone else) it's a good thing, but it can be one helluva impasse when they don't.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Marduk, I don't understand why you want to paint MM as a narcissist and really have no interest in whether she is one, or not. I have no idea why you care about that as she is a personal blogger who you will likely never meet and therefore, who gives a crap?

I also wouldn't give a crap if you found it "very telling" that I didn't give a crap.

Again, no clue why any of that matters to you, she is not a friend of yours or anyone who will ever have anything to do with your life. Being hung up on whether she is a narcissist or not is very telling about you, IMO.


----------



## Faithful Wife

And why is it even important? Marduk's fascination with making her be a narcissist is just plain weird to me.


----------



## Marduk

FrenchFry said:


> You will not find it because you can put everything in a narcissist box.
> 
> From a blog! That's the weird part. You are internet-savvy. You know the point of blogs. How are you going to diagnose a PD from a blog?


I can't diagnose anything because I'm not a doctor.

But I can pick up on patterns.

Can you demonstrate one that detracts from that as a hypothesis?

Because if it's true, it's very telling. It also explains why so many people flock to her on-line. They can be almost hypnotically attractive.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Why.....does.....it.....matter? 

Why do you care so much about whether she is or not?

I'm just curious. You are really seemingly going off a deep end about it. You are the only one who is so hung up on this. What is the reason it matters so much to you?


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> True. Maybe he'll leave her over this, or never forgive her for her hurtful words.
> 
> But she's having sex with him, which means that he is also having sex with her. Does a guy who equates sex with love continue to have sex even when he is filled with hurt and resentment?


This is a false dichotomy.

I cannot have romantic love without a sexual component, and yet I can have sex without a romantic component.

For me, I would be able to do exactly what you say above, but it would probably only be temporarily fulfilling.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> Why.....does.....it.....matter?
> 
> Why do you care so much about whether she is or not?
> 
> I'm just curious. You are really seemingly going off a deep end about it. You are the only one who is so hung up on this. What is the reason it matters so much to you?


OK, I'll say it again, with a twist:

It matters because it's being celebrated as advice. If it were portrayed as a warning sign instead of an "this is a good thing to do" story, my response would have been different.

As it would have been if the response from several (mostly female) posters here, who I respect and admire, who I expected to be very much on "it's a terrible idea" bandwagon, I would have dropped it. 

However, the response was in fact the opposite. Which I find very troubling, and disturbingly insightful into cognitive behaviour.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Who celebrated it as good advice? Names please.


----------



## Wazza

ocotillo said:


> One of the interesting things about this discussion is that two people can use the phrase, "..more than just sex" and mean very different things by it. One person may use it to imply a separation between sex and love while another uses it to imply a union between sex and love.
> 
> A person holding the former view may interpret the rejection of the hall pass offer as indication that in the grand scheme of things, sex is a relatively unimportant part of the relationship that can be put on hold for period of years, while a person holding the latter view may interpret the rejection of the hall pass offer as indication that sex is too important a part of a relationship and that indulging a hall pass would be forging a new relationship.
> 
> When both worldviews lead to the same place (i.e. reassurance that he doesn't want someone else) it's a good thing, but it can be one helluva impasse when they don't.


QFT. Liking was not enough.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> Who celebrated it as good advice? Names please.


Are we reading the same blog and thread?


----------



## Faithful Wife

I didn't see even one person say this was good advice. Yep read the whole thread.

Which leaves me to conclude you are seeing things that aren't there to fit your strange agenda of making this all about MM being a narcissist. 

I'm out.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> I didn't see even one person say this was good advice. Yep read the whole thread.
> 
> Which leaves me to conclude you are seeing things that aren't there to fit your strange agenda of making this all about MM being a narcissist.
> 
> I'm out.


K.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## always_alone

marduk said:


> This is a false dichotomy.
> 
> I cannot have romantic love without a sexual component, and yet I can have sex without a romantic component.
> 
> For me, I would be able to do exactly what you say above, but it would probably only be temporarily fulfilling.


So, it would be no problem then, to have a bit of sex on the side? You know, without romantic love. Because sex isn't in fact love. Right?


----------



## always_alone

ocotillo said:


> One of the interesting things about this discussion is that two people can use the phrase, "..more than just sex" and mean very different things by it. One person may use it to imply a separation between sex and love while another uses it to imply a union between sex and love.
> 
> A person holding the former view may interpret the rejection of the hall pass offer as indication that in the grand scheme of things, sex is a relatively unimportant part of the relationship that can be put on hold for period of years, while a person holding the latter view may interpret the rejection of the hall pass offer as indication that sex is too important a part of a relationship and that indulging a hall pass would be forging a new relationship.
> 
> When both worldviews lead to the same place (i.e. reassurance that he doesn't want someone else) it's a good thing, but it can be one helluva impasse when they don't.


I see what you're saying (I think). But I don't think the views are all that different. They are just coming at it from different angles. 

Any time someone offers a hall pass or opens a relationship, they are risking the demise of the current relationship, because yes, you cannot control feelings, keep them in neat little boxes, or predetermine the path of a relationship.

Even people who don't see sex and love as the same thing will mostly agree to this --although on the extreme end, they might be emotionally impaired sex addicts who never form proper emotional bonds.

So, of course there was a huge risk in offering a hall pass, and of course taking up such an offer may well mean the beginning of a new relationship.

But on the flip side, if the only thing holding the relationship together is sex, then that relationship is just as doomed. Surely you don't disagree? If someone cannot handle a sexual rough patch, if any loss of sex causes them to detach, the relationship to die, then, really, it is just a matter of time until someone starts feeling deprived (not enough, not enough variety, not enough spice, physical or medical issues in the way, travel, time apart, you name it) and starts looking to fill that hole with someone else.

Same risk, same problem, ultimately.


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> So, it would be no problem then, to have a bit of sex on the side? You know, without romantic love. Because sex isn't in fact love. Right?


For me, it would be a problem in that I seem to be monogamous. But conceptually, if it were mutually arrived at on both sides and treated respectfully and with empathy, I would have no issue.

As I posted earlier, if I were somehow unable to perform sexually for my wife long-term, I would likely offer her to find sexual satisfaction elsewhere -- not as a relief for me, but because I love her and want her to be happy.

It would suck, and I would hate it, but I would hate her not being fulfilled more.

Different perspective and very much a last resort.


----------



## ocotillo

AA,



always_alone said:


> But on the flip side, if the only thing holding the relationship together is sex, then that relationship is just as doomed. Surely you don't disagree?


I don't disagree with you, AA, but I do think it makes a difference whether your use of the word, "only" is understood in the sense of, "solely" or in the sense of, "merely."






always_alone said:


> If someone cannot handle a sexual rough patch, if any loss of sex causes them to detach, the relationship to die, then, really, it is just a matter of time until someone starts feeling deprived (not enough, not enough variety, not enough spice, physical or medical issues in the way, travel, time apart, you name it) and starts looking to fill that hole with someone else.


I think it's probably more a matter of degree than something we can speak of in absolutes. 

I understand that some people are skeptical, but I'd ask them in all sincerity (And curiosity tbh) how long (In years) they were in a sexless, but otherwise amicable marriage and if they honestly think the marriage didn't suffer in other areas as a result.


----------



## always_alone

ocotillo said:


> AA,
> I don't disagree with you, AA, but I do think it makes a difference whether your use of the word, "only" is understood in the sense of, "solely" or in the sense of, "merely."


Gotcha! And that one is about compatibility, which again is a relationship maker or breaker. Different people will absolutely attach different levels of importance.

I personally use the term "only" in the sense of "solely", and TBH would not last in a sexless relationship as long as some of the posters on TAM have put up with such things.


----------



## Wazza

AA, I get the sense that you want to see sex and love as an equation. That either sex equals love or it doesn't.

I wold say more that they are distinct but related. Without sex there is a dimension missing from love and without love there is a dimension missing from sex.


----------



## always_alone

Wazza said:


> AA, I get the sense that you want to see sex and love as an equation. That either sex equals love or it doesn't.
> 
> I wold say more that they are distinct but related. Without sex there is a dimension missing from love and without love there is a dimension missing from sex.


Not at all. I was explicitly challenging other posts that said that said sex and love were the same thing. The outrage at the blogger (or much of it) hinged on the idea that "sex is love" for men, and she is selfish and evil for even thinking that something like a hall pass might be favorably received. Indeed, I think it was you who accused me of making too much of a distinction between the two in an earlier post.

But, as it happens, what we find: no, sex is not the same as love. Sure, they are related; sure they are both important. But it is hardly beyond the realm of the reasonable to talk about them as distinct, nor to consider it possible that treating them as separate at times may help us preserve and build our relationships.

That is to say: yes, I agree with your definition in that second paragraph.


----------



## Marduk

FrenchFry said:


> @marduk
> 
> That's what I thought: all of those articles are written by different women.
> 
> Sarah is MissGuided Mama and probably has different issues than the other women on this site.
> 
> I'm a Lazy Mom is pretty much how to keep your Marriage Alive 101. Stop focusing on your kids, teach them self sufficiency and stop helicoptering them.
> 
> Grave Mistake is ridiculous and scary. I hope she learned her lesson.
> 
> Over on Missguided Mama, Ms. Sarah isn't really that abrasive, outlandish or selfish. Sounds like a normal mom to me, honestly. I would have a coffee with her and chat about where we are going to move when our children turn 18.
> 
> So, don't villify her based on the Scary Mommy Aggregate. Scary Mommy is Buzzfeed. Scary Mommy is HuffPo. Scary Mommy is not one terrible woman on a mission to ruin her kids and her husband.


I believe it is one's actions that should be judged, not some impression of their internal state or likability.


----------

