# New tactic, lets see how it works out.



## Lone Ranger (Apr 15, 2012)

So after being patient for almost 2 years, waiting for my wife to start caring about our lack of intimacy. After multiple talks and action plans, broken / empty promises... I think I finally have my chance to make her understand.

Since the birth of our son, who is almost 2 years old, my wife gets her full quota of emotional "need" taken care of by our son. Well, it would seem that my wife is ready for child number 2!

We had always planned to have a 2-3 year gap between our children, and she has started the heavy hint dropping. Here's the thing though, I am also ready for another child. But I am feeling empty, her complete lack of interest in anything sexual over the last 2 years has run me dry. I would rather rub one out than even contemplate taking up the day long mating ritual, especially when it has about a 15% success rate to begin with.

Last night I told my wife I am ready to try for our 2nd child. But I gave a stipulation; even though we would be "actively" (the irony) trying for another child, it would be at the current pace. That would be about once every 10 weeks as it has been for the past 2 years.

Her face was amazing. We struggled with our first child, it took 2 years of trying with atleast 3-4 times per week. So I am hoping this will really sink in with her that the current handful a year is not acceptable.


----------



## 1971 (Mar 7, 2013)

Good luck with that, I'm not sure anything will change long term.

I hope it does


----------



## PBear (Nov 16, 2010)

While its probably a good way to make your point now, do you really think it will make a difference after the next child is born? All your plan will do is make your child support payments higher in the future, when you finally deal with things in the only way that will improve your sex life.

Just my $0.02 worth...

C


----------



## mineforever (Jan 31, 2013)

That should start some interesting conversations. She evidently does not understand that sex is a need not a nice to have for a man....and for some women it is a need as well.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

You will have a better chance at making a change if you tell her you don't even want a 2nd child because you can see now that this is not a marriage you will want to stay in long term.

Yeah that's harsh but it is honest, and in case neither of you have contemplated how crappy a divorce is, you probably should...because getting one is probably in your future unless you decide to accept being sexless.

.


----------



## CuddleBug (Nov 26, 2012)

Unfortunately, her hormones may of been changed due to her first child and unless she gets meds, her interest in sex will not change. If you decide to have the 2nd child, her sex drive after that will more than likely be non existent.

Marriage counseling, and meds are needed or divorce her or put up with the minimal to no sex for the rest of your life.

Just the way it is. LD's, don't change. 

Wish you the best.


----------



## GettingIt_2 (Apr 12, 2013)

Lone Ranger said:


> So after being patient for almost 2 years, waiting for my wife to start caring about our lack of intimacy. After multiple talks and action plans, broken / empty promises... I think I finally have my chance to make her understand.
> 
> Since the birth of our son, who is almost 2 years old, my wife gets her full quota of emotional "need" taken care of by our son. Well, it would seem that my wife is ready for child number 2!
> 
> ...


I agree with other posters who recommend against another child. If you are in an unhappy marriage, bringing another child into the picture is unwise at best. 

You are understandably frustrated, but if this is the best way you can come up with to deal with your dissatisfaction with sex and intimacy in your relationship, I don't think you are going to see success in turning things around. 

Has your wife always been LD, or did you at one time have a mutually satisfying sex life with her?


----------



## WorkingOnMe (Mar 17, 2012)

For Gods sake please done bring more children into this marriage.


----------



## Hicks (Jan 14, 2011)

You could impregnate her on the first try and you will have another child brought into a bad marriage.

It's way more effective to tell her that you do want another child, but cannot bring a new child into this bad marriage.


----------



## Lone Ranger (Apr 15, 2012)

Call me naive or what not but I don't think our marriage is bad simply because of this issue, in every other aspect I can't say a single bad word against my wife. I understand a lot of posters here have atleast a decade on me, and maybe my marriage will end up becoming yours in time... Right now though I have some hope.

Its just a question of finding a way to get this through to my wife. This time it really seemed to have an effect on her.

As a teacher, I could literally see the cogs turn in her head / eyes like a pupil of mine would. Maybe now she will understand that its not ok to withhold sex because you don't "need" it and then expect the frequency to increase tenfold because the record has changed and all of a sudden you DO want it. Now she will get to experience first hand what its been like for me...


----------



## PBear (Nov 16, 2010)

Oh, I have no doubt that this will have an increase in her sex drive, and I'm sure she would promise that she sees the light and things will be better after the new child is born. But I'm even more sure that any changes or promises will fall by the wayside if not right after a positive pregnancy test, at most in the post-partem period. I'd bet $100 to the charity of your choice on that. 

C
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Lone Ranger said: _"Maybe now she will understand that its not ok to withhold sex because you don't "need" it and then expect the frequency to increase tenfold because the record has changed and all of a sudden you DO want it. Now she will get to experience first hand what its been like for me..."_

Nope. She will just understand that if she wants a baby, it is going to be really difficult to get pregnant on the current schedule. So she will make sure there is more sex between now and whenever she gets pregnant....and after that? She won't care anymore. Why would she? You have literally set this up as a "to get pregnant" issue, not a sex issue.

.


----------



## Tall Average Guy (Jul 26, 2011)

Lone Ranger said:


> Last night I told my wife I am ready to try for our 2nd child. But I gave a stipulation; even though we would be "actively" (the irony) trying for another child, it would be at the current pace. That would be about once every 10 weeks as it has been for the past 2 years.
> 
> Her face was amazing. We struggled with our first child, it took 2 years of trying with atleast 3-4 times per week. So I am hoping this will really sink in with her that the current handful a year is not acceptable.


Sorry, but this comes across as passive aggressive crap. Be a man and honest about it. Tell her that when you agreed to more than one child, you did so with the assumption that she would have time for you and that your would work together to have a good marriage. Since that is not the case, you no longer want another child. 

She will squawk and likely tell you that she gets it. Make clear that it will take more than words and that you need to see real action. That includes reading books, going to counseling, and effort in the bedroom. Give it at least a year to see if she is really committed.


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

PBear said:


> Oh, I have no doubt that this will have an increase in her sex drive, and I'm sure she would promise that she sees the light and things will be better after the new child is born. But I'm even more sure that any changes or promises will fall by the wayside if not right after a positive pregnancy test, at most in the post-partem period. I'd bet $100 to the charity of your choice on that.
> 
> C
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I'll toss a Franklin into the mix too.


----------



## Jellybeans (Mar 8, 2011)

Faithful Wife said:


> You will have a better chance at making a change if you tell her you don't even want a 2nd child because you can see now that this is not a marriage you will want to stay in long term.


:iagree:


----------



## deejov (Sep 24, 2011)

Faithful Wife said:


> Lone Ranger said: _"Maybe now she will understand that its not ok to withhold sex because you don't "need" it and then expect the frequency to increase tenfold because the record has changed and all of a sudden you DO want it. Now she will get to experience first hand what its been like for me..."_
> 
> Nope. She will just understand that if she wants a baby, it is going to be really difficult to get pregnant on the current schedule. So she will make sure there is more sex between now and whenever she gets pregnant....and after that? She won't care anymore. Why would she? You have literally set this up as a "to get pregnant" issue, not a sex issue.
> 
> .


This is exactly what happened to my friend. Except he didn't even realise she was actually initiating because she was trying to get pregnant. At least you know the whole story.

I disagree that she will see firsthand what it's like for you. 
She doesn't understand what you are going through. Emotional starvation versus just plain not getting what you want. 

Why would she do this? Because it's somehow been made clear that it is acceptable to you to do so. No boundaries. Intimacy is not a requirement of marriage. Otherwise, you would have left, detached, let her go. 

Hope is wonderful. Use that energy. In a better way.


----------



## mineforever (Jan 31, 2013)

_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Toffer (Jan 31, 2012)

Sorry Ranger but I agree with the others

If you continue down this path you'll simply wind up where some of us old timers are......wonderful kids, a somewhat decent life (from the outside anyway) and a buning desire to feel desired by the one we love and desire

The resentment will grow in you like a cancer, slowly eating away at your self esteem and your ego.

What will happen is you'll be told (and you'll believe it) that the kids need her 100 percent of the time (or close to it) and that things will get better in the sex department when they're older. Take it from someone whose kids are 22, 19 and 15, IT DOESN'T!

Think looooonnnggg and hard before you dou le your child support obligation!

This is a problem you need to fix BEFORE you try for another child!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## KendalMintcake (Nov 3, 2012)

Wow, this guy got ripped hard for what seems to be the perfect illustration to his wife f how he feels. Suddenly now that she needs sex, she expects him to turn on and oblige. I think what he said is a perfect lead-in to a good productive conversation. It could go bad of he opts to dig it in, I think he should oblige her and show compassion because that's what he is going to need from her in order to have her change her ways. The worst thing to do now would be to punish her with the ammunition he has stock-piled. Instead, use the situation to emphasize that he is going to be nice and would like the same in return. I laughed reading this one - what a jab and would live to hear more about the expression on her face. It's funny as I can totally see a teacher pulling that sort of line in class with a rowdy little punk student who just found him/herself in a bind after slacking off a whole term!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Tall Average Guy (Jul 26, 2011)

KendalMintcake said:


> Wow, this guy got ripped hard for what seems to be the perfect illustration to his wife f how he feels. Suddenly now that she needs sex, she expects him to turn on and oblige. I think what he said is a perfect lead-in to a good productive conversation. It could go bad of he opts to dig it in, I think he should oblige her and show compassion because that's what he is going to need from her in order to have her change her ways. The worst thing to do now would be to punish her with the ammunition he has stock-piled. Instead, use the situation to emphasize that he is going to be nice and would like the same in return. I laughed reading this one - what a jab and would live to hear more about the expression on her face. It's funny as I can totally see a teacher pulling that sort of line in class with a rowdy little punk student who just found him/herself in a bind after slacking off a whole term!
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Why would that be the worst thing he could do? He is not happy with how things have been since the last kid, so why would he think anything would get better with another?

On the surface, her actions are selfish. Something (in this case sex) is not important unless it is important to her. On what planet is rewarding that behavior beneficial to him? He absolutely needs to make clear that things need to change, and she needs to show real change, before he agrees. Compassion needs to flow both ways.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Kendal, the reason I am against the way the OP did this, was that it was completely passive aggressive, and almost paternal.

It was basically saying "oh so NOW you want me because you want a baby but I'm not going to give you any so I can teach you your lesson". How is his wife supposed to want to have sex with a man who would deliver this message? That is so unsexy.

Just the fact that he cannot plainly state instead "I'm not happy with the way things are and I will not continue on as if nothing is wrong" shows they definitely should not have another baby yet.

.


----------



## Hoosier (May 17, 2011)

I loved the post. I get what he wanted to do and how he did it. The people who have a problem assume that he is going to divorce if things don't improve, so why bring a child into the marriage (I agree). But I didn't see where he said lack of sex was a deal breaker (would be for me, thank god she cheated) for the marriage. Will the effects of the message stay with her for a long time? I doubt it. Agree that when she gets what she wants she will return to her old ways. But at least the OP broke thru to her for a few seconds, sometimes that's enough.


----------



## WorkingOnMe (Mar 17, 2012)

It's passive agressive. And worst of all, it's ineffective.


----------



## daffodilly (Oct 3, 2011)

Hoosier said:


> I loved the post. I get what he wanted to do and how he did it. The people who have a problem assume that he is going to divorce if things don't improve, so why bring a child into the marriage (I agree). But I didn't see where he said lack of sex was a deal breaker (would be for me, thank god she cheated) for the marriage. Will the effects of the message stay with her for a long time? I doubt it. Agree that when she gets what she wants she will return to her old ways.* But at least the OP broke thru to her for a few seconds, sometimes that's enough.*


It's rarely enough. I agree with the others, she'll up the sex until she's pregnant, then go back to her old ways. Her excuse will be that two children are more exhausting to take care of than one.

I'd go a step further and take birth control in your hands...wear condoms every single time. Give her at least a year to prove herself that she's serious about changing. You are definitely in denial if you think this will not destroy your marriage. You're frustrated at this going on for a couple of years....imagine 15 like that. Your resentment will only grow.


----------



## MarriedTex (Sep 24, 2010)

Any time you think that you have to resort to "tactics" to get more sack time with the wife - well - you've already lost the battle.

Either she gets it or she doesn't. This is clear opportunity for you to communicate that relationship is not heading in direction that you like. Certainly, it doesn't warrant you doubling-down in the form of a second kid. 

I personally would doubt any promises now regarding future behavior. Whatever she's selling, I'd be very skeptical. Caveat Emptor.


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

Lone Ranger said:


> Call me naive or what not but I don't think our marriage is bad simply because of this issue, ...


You are naive. You are failing to recognize that marriage is a sexual relationship. That is the primary difference between marriage and every other relationship in your life.

You saying that your marriage is great, except for sex, is like saying that a restaurant is really great, except for the food. Well, that's the main reason most people go to a restaurant.



> Maybe now she will understand that its not ok to withhold sex because you don't "need" it and then expect the frequency to increase tenfold because the record has changed and all of a sudden you DO want it. Now she will get to experience first hand what its been like for me...


As a teacher, you should know what assuming is good for. You need to learn that your wife will treat you exactly the way you allow her to treat you. You have allowed her to disregard your sexual needs. Don't be mad at her. Be mad at yourself.

Also, there is no tricky way to change her. You have to make a choice. You can either change yourself and no longer accept a sexless marriage, or you can accept your sexless marriage. There is no magic word or phrase that will suddenly make your wife understand what it is like to be a man. She will never understand that. What she must understand is that a sexless marriage is either something you will accept, or not.

And I'll go on record as saying that having another child is the absolute worst thing you can do. But, you're not alone. There are a whole host of children of divorce who can claim that mommy or daddy thought one more child would be the thing to fix a bad marriage. There are very few of those kids whose parents were correct.

Good luck.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Great post, PHT, except this part:

"There is no magic word or phrase that will suddenly make your wife understand what it is like _to be a man_."

Should say this:

"There is no magic word or phrase that will suddenly make your wife understand what it is like _to be HD in a relationship with an LD_".

.


----------



## PBear (Nov 16, 2010)

PHTlump said:


> You are naive. You are failing to recognize that marriage is a sexual relationship. That is the primary difference between marriage and every other relationship in your life.
> 
> You saying that your marriage is great, except for sex, is like saying that a restaurant is really great, except for the food. Well, that's the main reason most people go to a restaurant.
> 
> ...


Great post! If I could like it from my phone, I'd do that! 

C
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Lone Ranger (Apr 15, 2012)

forgive my lack of grammar / punctuation as this is written on my phone.

holy ****ing **** when did everyone on this forum get so damn bitter and projective. look i get it ure marriage or previous marriage went down the ****ter for whatever reason. thats YOUR reason, not mine. dont project that **** onto me / my problem.

you are all applying your own weight / load onto the issue. that crap about sex in the marriage is like food in a restaurant is personal to you. thats your weight.

perhaps for others sex in a marriage is like how clean the toilets are. hell some people might not even use public toilets. that changes the load of the statement entirely. or how about sex in a marriage is like how cold the drinks are? come on now people really.

In the past i have found this forum to be a haven with solid non bias advice filled with reason and understanding. even when that advice isnt something i wanna hear. what happened to the old posters?

talking about assuming. where did i say divorce is even on the table? its not. so good job ASSUMING that. 

and im not even going to bother touching on the utter bull**** about passive aggressive apart from saying this: 

its how we teach children right from wrong. treat others how you expect to be ttreated yourself. and thats all i did to my wife. i showed her how i had been treated in a way which effected her.

now thats all off my chest. 

i had another talk today with my wife about it. she explained to me that up till now she wasnt even aware the lack of intimacy had degraded this far and that this whole thing had opened her eyes to how i must have been feeling. she got very emotional, something which on previous talks she had not been.

i feel confident that this has cut through the haze.

in all cases. it was more about "the message" than the message itself.


----------



## GetTough (Jul 18, 2010)

Lone Ranger said:


> So after being patient for almost 2 years, waiting for my wife to start caring about our lack of intimacy. After multiple talks and action plans, broken / empty promises... I think I finally have my chance to make her understand.
> 
> Since the birth of our son, who is almost 2 years old, my wife gets her full quota of emotional "need" taken care of by our son. Well, it would seem that my wife is ready for child number 2!
> 
> ...


You're clearly hurt and resentful about the lack of sex. I'm sorry about your situation. Sounds like payback, because it is. I don't think a vengeful approach is the best way to handle it. I think the way to handle it is to focus on self improvement, not on her or her perceived wrongdoings. She's just reacting to the way she feels. You can't threaten her into sex. That's not going to make her feel more like intimacy. You can only be stronger and more loving in a non-needy way. You'll have gotten the message across for sure, but now you risk having a wife who's capitulating not because she wants intimacy but because she wants a child.


----------



## Accipiter777 (Jul 22, 2011)

Having another child will again fulfil her needs, leaving you in the cold. IMHO. You need to find what her "normal" needs are in a marriage and work from there...


----------



## Goodgrl (Jun 21, 2013)

I would try to fix the current issue before bringing in another child, after number 2, you might not get any anymore


----------



## donny64 (Apr 21, 2012)

PBear said:


> While its probably a good way to make your point now, do you really think it will make a difference after the next child is born? All your plan will do is make your child support payments higher in the future, when you finally deal with things in the only way that will improve your sex life.
> 
> Just my $0.02 worth...
> 
> C


Yes, I agree, a good way to make a point...if you're trying to win a contest.

She's comfortable in her ways. The only way to snap her out of that is to make her uncomfortable. Sly remarks won't do it...she doesn't care (outside of feigned expressions of "hurt feelings").

Anger won't do it. 

Apathy won't do it.

What will do it (make her uncomfortable) is to let her KNOW she's losing you. Words won't do that...actions will.

I'm not sure what it is, as women love to talk and are typically great communicators of feelings...but they can sure shut out a man and his feelings.

You've given the hints. You've done the talks. It's time for action. Start pulling back (and not in a pouty, spoiled child way). Start SHOWING her you're tired of it and are getting ready to walk. 

Some people are oblivious, and are also self serving. As long as they're comfortable, they could give a chit less how those around them are affected.

Show her some consequences for being an unloving and uncaring wife. Some people need consequences before they change.



> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Call me naive or what not but I don't think our marriage is bad simply because of this issue, in every other aspect I can't say a single bad word against my wife. I understand a lot of posters here have atleast a decade on me, and maybe my marriage will end up becoming yours in time... Right now though I have some hope.
> 
> ...


Niether did any of the rest of us who have been through it. The lonesome cry of the guy with the LD, baitswitching wife..."but I LOVE her...we have a GREAT marriage...I mean, other than the fact she only sleeps with me twice a year".

And then years pass, and suddenly the way you love her is as a sister. Or simply as the mother of your child. But not as a lover.

The point is to get her to "want it" because she really WANTS IT...not because she wants something out of it (a child).

And if she can't get to that point, where she wants sex with you because she wants YOU, then, really, is that the way you want to conceive a child with her? Because she had sex with you simply because it was more convenient than artificial insemination?

STOP being seen as a sperm donor, and stop making future plans with her (or vebalizing them to her). She needs to start worrying there may BE NO future with you, if she is to change her ways.


----------



## donny64 (Apr 21, 2012)

WorkingOnMe said:


> It's passive agressive. And worst of all, it's ineffective.


Yup. You don't want her to think you're punishing her. You want her to know you've had enough, aren't going to tolerate it, and are finished with her if she doesn't change her ways. You want her to KNOW that you're a guy who is going to get what he wants out of life, be it with her, or without her. If she won't let it be with her, well then....

Big difference. HUGE.

It can be as simple as verbalizing just that. And doing it with conviction. That you are unhappy like this, and you won't live life like this...PERIOD. You owe it to yourself, and your child, to be a happy person, and not someone stuck in a loveless marriage. All efforts should be made to make it so, but when you've blacked out for the umpteenth time from banging your head on the wall, it's time to hit the door.


----------



## PBear (Nov 16, 2010)

Lone Ranger said:


> forgive my lack of grammar / punctuation as this is written on my phone.
> 
> holy ****ing **** when did everyone on this forum get so damn bitter and projective. look i get it ure marriage or previous marriage went down the ****ter for whatever reason. thats YOUR reason, not mine. dont project that **** onto me / my problem.
> 
> ...


So what was your question from your original post, then? Typically, when people post they either have a question or want feedback. You're getting feedback now, but apparently that's not what you wanted...

The reason why you're getting comments like you are is because there's many of us (men and women) who have been in multi-year marriages that have left them feeling undesired and with low self-esteem as a result of a spouse constantly rejecting them sexually. It wears you down, like water dripping on a rock. You think it's ok, and then 10 years later, you find a hole where your heart was. 

Maybe your heart will be strong enough to stand up to your wife putting your intimacy needs last in her priority list. For your sake, I hope so. In any case, I wish you and your family well. 

C


----------



## Lone Ranger (Apr 15, 2012)

I can't say I understand what that feels like PBear, because compared to a lot of people here my 2 years (lack of intimacy) are nothing but a holiday, so I won't even pretend I do understand.

Really, I am fine with getting advice / feedback - even if its something I don't want to hear / don't want to accept. What I am not fine with however, is when that advice / feedback is laced with venom and personal bias. Been quite a few posts which have neither been supportive or helpful, just angry people being angry. We _are_ all here to support each other, _right_?

Thank you to the guys / gals who have managed to give feedback (actually most are saying the same thing) in a supportive fashion.


----------



## WorkingOnMe (Mar 17, 2012)

Interesting. Your response to feedback you don't like is also passive agressive. Perhaps this tendency in you is why she doesn't have sex with you in the first place. It's very off putting.


----------



## Theseus (Feb 22, 2013)

Faithful Wife said:


> Kendal, the reason I am against the way the OP did this, was that it was completely passive aggressive, and almost paternal.


Let me get this straight. So in this wife wants sex X times a year, and now wants to increase the frequency, not because she is more aroused, but because she wants another child. 

Personally, I wouldn't want to have sex with someone who is "faking it" and not really in the mood. In what universe is refusing to do that called "passive aggressive"??



> It was basically saying "oh so NOW you want me because you want a baby but I'm not going to give you any so I can teach you your lesson".


As opposed to her basically saying "I don't really enjoy sex but now that I want a baby let's start doing it anyway"?



> How is his wife supposed to want to have sex with a man who would deliver this message? That is so unsexy.


How is her husband supposed to have sex with someone who is "faking it"? That is much MORE unsexy, in my opinion. 




> Just the fact that he cannot plainly state instead "I'm not happy with the way things are and I will not continue on as if nothing is wrong" shows they definitely should not have another baby yet.


Maybe you didn't really read his comment, but it seemed pretty clear to me that he had plainly communicated that he was not happy with the way things are. I can understand the OP's frustration with some of these comments.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Thesus....let me make it clear here since I felt it was implied in my posts on this thread but it wasn't: my DEFAULT position in marriage is that there should be LOTS of sex freely flowing between partners...that all problems that can occur that might harm the sex life should be addressed and solved immediately...and that neither partner should use passive aggressive techniques, but rather, Radical Honesty.

Does that help you understand my post more?

It seems maybe you think I was "siding" with the wife or something.

I am not siding with her, I think she is in danger of a future divorce if she doesn't address the sex issues in her marriage. I think it is not wise for her to want another baby right now when her husband is not 100% happy. 

But I further think that the husband was definitely passive aggressive and paternal in his way of dealing with this and that it wasn't sexy.

If you want to have sex, start with being sexy. That's one of my basic beliefs.

But don't get me wrong, the wife isn't being wifely, and that isn't sexy either. Her husband loves her and wants to be sexual with her and she should find whatever ways she can to get more on board with this. But again, I wouldn't blame her for being turned off at the way this went down. SHE isn't here, or I would have told her I felt she needed to get this resolved before it permanently damages their marriage.

In the end, both spouses here have some work to do, and I really hope they do it and end up happy.

.


----------



## Lone Ranger (Apr 15, 2012)

WorkingOnMe said:


> Interesting. Your response to feedback you don't like is also passive agressive. Perhaps this tendency in you is why she doesn't have sex with you in the first place. It's very off putting.


The irony is that what you just said / how you said, could actually be put into a dictionary as a direct example of something passive aggressive.

Stop being a jerk mate, maybe thats why *insert strawman / anecdotal evidence here*. Its very off putting.

Gee wasn't that insightful / helpful. I really feel like I supported you!


----------



## Tall Average Guy (Jul 26, 2011)

Lone Ranger said:


> The irony is that what you just said / how you said, could actually be put into a dictionary as a direct example of something passive aggressive.
> 
> Stop being a jerk mate, maybe thats why *insert strawman / anecdotal evidence here*. Its very off putting.
> 
> Gee wasn't that insightful / helpful. I really feel like I supported you!


How was it passive aggressive? The post pretty directly noted a problem that he observed. You may disagree, but it was advice given. It certainly was not an insult nor was it a strawman. So why go in that direction.

My advice still stands. Make crystal clear why you are doing what you are doing. Playing games, which is what your original post implied, will get you nowhere and likely invite her to play games.


----------



## Laila8 (Apr 24, 2013)

Lone Ranger, what did she actually say when you told her you could try for a second baby but that the frequency would stay the same? Did she "get it?" Or did she just look confused?


----------



## Lone Ranger (Apr 15, 2012)

Laila8 said:


> Lone Ranger, what did she actually say when you told her you could try for a second baby but that the frequency would stay the same? Did she "get it?" Or did she just look confused?


There was a spark in her eyes. It really was like watching a pupil of mine finally understanding long division etc.

I took some advice straight from this very forum about a year ago, which I put into practise. It had an effect but she slipped right back into the rut again after about a month of genuine effort, I think because although she "understood" in a way, she didn't understand in the right way? That is a crappy way of explaining it, sorry.

Its almost like she understood why it was an issue for me, but because it didn't directly effect her she didn't have an incentive to "keep it up"

Where as because I managed to get her to think about it and understand the problem, directly from her own perspective - I think something really clicked this time. She has understood for her own reasons, instead of trying to understand for mine. I think that is a better way of putting it.

People are generally right though about getting things sorted and stable before _actually_ trying for another child.


----------



## Laila8 (Apr 24, 2013)

Lone Ranger said:


> There was a spark in her eyes. It really was like watching a pupil of mine finally understanding long division etc.
> 
> I took some advice straight from this very forum about a year ago, which I put into practise. It had an effect but she slipped right back into the rut again after about a month of genuine effort, I think because although she "understood" in a way, she didn't understand in the right way? That is a crappy way of explaining it, sorry.
> 
> ...


I don't know...if she didn't actually say anything, that "spark" in her eyes that you assumed told you she gets it, could actually be something else. Maybe she was pissed. Maybe she was shocked. You're assuming she got it, but you just don't know because you're not communicating directly.


----------



## Lone Ranger (Apr 15, 2012)

Laila8 said:


> I don't know...if she didn't actually say anything, that "spark" in her eyes that you assumed told you she gets it, could actually be something else. Maybe she was pissed. Maybe she was shocked. You're assuming she got it, but you just don't know because you're not communicating directly.


Yeah well, ofcourse she talked as well 

As I said before, it was the same look I get when a pupil of mine FINALLY understands something, my pupils don't usually display a look of anger upon such an achievement!


----------



## Tall Average Guy (Jul 26, 2011)

Lone Ranger said:


> I took some advice straight from this very forum about a year ago, which I put into practise. It had an effect but she slipped right back into the rut again after about a month of genuine effort, I think because although she "understood" in a way, she didn't understand in the right way? That is a crappy way of explaining it, sorry.
> 
> Its almost like she understood why it was an issue for me, but because it didn't directly effect her she didn't have an incentive to "keep it up"


This is a large part of why I think she needs to show that she gets it for some real period of time. The danger that she gets it, gets another child, and then suddenly loses her incentive (because raising a child is exhausting, and two is even worse, and once they are out of diapers, you have the terrible twos that morph into the threes, and you get the idea) is just too great.


----------



## Lone Ranger (Apr 15, 2012)

Tall Average Guy said:


> This is a large part of why I think she needs to show that she gets it for some real period of time. The danger that she gets it, gets another child, and then suddenly loses her incentive (because raising a child is exhausting, and two is even worse, and once they are out of diapers, you have the terrible twos that morph into the threes, and you get the idea) is just too great.


Yep I agree with you on that, this is the icebreaker but some form of action plan will need to be put in place. 

I am hoping (fools hope maybe?) that now she is "in the know" she will be more aware of things this time round and make more of an effort.

When it comes to the raising of our children, I make sure I am very much involved and helping out. My wife doesn't work (I mean this in the strictest sense of "job" as raising children is definitely work!) so she is not under the stress of being pulled in two separate ways.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

But Lone Ranger, why would you just "hope" that she will be more aware of things this next time around? Why wouldn't you pro-actively make sure she does?

Perhaps you think me and some of the others are saying that you are supposed to get in her face with some mean, stern directive.

But I'm not saying anything like that. I am saying you need more communication about this topic so that you know and don't just hope that she "gets it this time".

.


----------



## Lone Ranger (Apr 15, 2012)

I tried doing that, it didn't seem to have much effect on my wife. I tried the 180, I tried ignoring her, I tried being all alpha about it, I tried self improving and setting an example. None of it really worked I'm afraid.

I think the difference between my view on sex, and a lot of other posters is, is that it isn't the be-all end-all. For me intimacy can get achieved through many other avenues and for the time being (and foreseeable future, unless my outlook on life drastically changes) I am OK with that. 

The problem I am facing is that my wife isn't fulfilling any form of intimacy need I have, through any means (not just sex)

I don't think I would be prepared to leave my wife over this, my wife just needs to know that I need her on some level. On a somewhat unrelated, but related note;

Our son still sleeps in our bedroom, he is almost two years old. I have put my foot down in regards to his deportation (lol) to his own room. The process is starting on this Saturday coming and thats that. My wife is onboard with the idea - as part of her "awakening" she has come to the realisation that this would be the first step rekindling out intimacy. Even if its just baby steps and we get a good snuggle at bedtime / through the night, that would be enough for me - atleast as good headway to improving standards.


----------



## Tall Average Guy (Jul 26, 2011)

Lone Ranger said:


> I tried doing that, it didn't seem to have much effect on my wife. I tried the 180, I tried ignoring her, I tried being all alpha about it, I tried self improving and setting an example. None of it really worked I'm afraid.
> 
> I think the difference between my view on sex, and a lot of other posters is, is that it isn't the be-all end-all. For me intimacy can get achieved through many other avenues and for the time being (and foreseeable future, unless my outlook on life drastically changes) I am OK with that.
> 
> ...


Again, what evidence is there that having another kid will not cause the same drop in intimacy (whether it is sex or some other form)? Do you think she will not have the second child sleep in your bedroom? Do you think she won't focus on the new born?

Sure, we addressed it as sex, but it still holds true for other activities as well. Baby steps at this point can't be enough for you to give her what she needs. As you admit yourself, she stops giving effort after a short period of time in the past. Words are not enough - she needs to show you through sustained actions that she does get it and will continue. 

To do otherwise is to merely see what you want to see and then hope and pray.


----------



## Lone Ranger (Apr 15, 2012)

Tall Average Guy said:


> Again, what evidence is there that having another kid will not cause the same drop in intimacy (whether it is sex or some other form)? Do you think she will not have the second child sleep in your bedroom? Do you think she won't focus on the new born?
> 
> Sure, we addressed it as sex, but it still holds true for other activities as well. Baby steps at this point can't be enough for you to give her what she needs. As you admit yourself, she stops giving effort after a short period of time in the past. Words are not enough - she needs to show you through sustained actions that she does get it and will continue.
> 
> To do otherwise is to merely see what you want to see and then hope and pray.


Our son is a bit of a special case, we tried for over 2 years previously for him, he was dearly wanted by the both of us. I was soft when it came to putting resistance into him coming into our bedroom. I take partial blame on this one without a doubt.

I totally agree that words are not enough. However there has to be a starting point somewhere and although I / we have tried in the past (numerous times) each time hasn't seemed to carry the same weight as this time.

I am not a religious man in the slightest, so praying is out of the question ;D

When it comes to hope though, if there is anything in the world deserving of my hope its my wife and that won't change.


----------



## PBear (Nov 16, 2010)

I have no doubts that she "gets it" now. 

But my bet still stands. After the next child is born, you'll be back in the same boat. With no more bargaining chips (unless she wants another child...) and in a worse situation if you should want to divorce. Not that I'm encouraging that... 

C
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Tall Average Guy (Jul 26, 2011)

Lone Ranger said:


> Our son is a bit of a special case, we tried for over 2 years previously for him, he was dearly wanted by the both of us. I was soft when it came to putting resistance into him coming into our bedroom. I take partial blame on this one without a doubt.
> 
> I totally agree that words are not enough. However there has to be a starting point somewhere and although I / we have tried in the past (numerous times) each time hasn't seemed to carry the same weight as this time.
> 
> ...


What makes now different? Because you see it in her eyes? Or because you so want to believe it?

I am not telling you to divorce her, or drop her or anything like that. I am telling you to make sure that she really does get it by showing you, through sustain action, that she gets it. Not for a month, but much longer.


----------



## Toffer (Jan 31, 2012)

Lone Ranger said:


> I
> Really, I am fine with getting advice / feedback - even if its something I don't want to hear / don't want to accept. What I am not fine with however, is when that advice / feedback is laced with venom and personal bias. Been quite a few posts which have neither been supportive or helpful, just angry people being angry. We _are_ all here to support each other, _right_?
> 
> *LR, my post to you wasn't written in anger at all. Mine was simply written to illustrate for you what CAN happen. Many have said it here before that they love their spouses and think they are the best thing since sliced bread (I know, I'm one of them). I am a believer in marriage and have no intention of divorce either.
> ...


*Most are saying the same thing yet it doesn't seem you are listening regardless of whether the message was delivered in a supportive fashion or not. The question remains, what are you going to do to try and fix this?*


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

Lone Ranger said:


> holy ****ing **** when did everyone on this forum get so damn bitter and projective. look i get it ure marriage or previous marriage went down the ****ter for whatever reason. thats YOUR reason, not mine. dont project that **** onto me / my problem.


I think this is more of your naivety showing through. You think you are unique. You and your wife are special snowflakes that have a marriage with issues that nobody else has ever seen. Not true. You're typical. You have typical problems. There are literally dozens of posters on this board, and several in this thread, who have been exactly where you are. Some succeeded in fixing their marriage. Some failed and divorced. Some are still languishing in a sexless marriage. But you are wrong to think that we have nothing to offer you.



> you are all applying your own weight / load onto the issue. that crap about sex in the marriage is like food in a restaurant is personal to you. thats your weight.


If you didn't get married to have sex, that's personal for you. Personally, I got married for sex. And so did most people.



> perhaps for others sex in a marriage is like how clean the toilets are. hell some people might not even use public toilets. that changes the load of the statement entirely. or how about sex in a marriage is like how cold the drinks are? come on now people really.


You're a teacher and you don't understand analogies? Come on. You can't understand the difference between a primary reason and an ancillary reason? Sex is a primary benefit of marriage. Take it away and you have a female roommate. You can get one of those on Craigs list in a few hours.



> In the past i have found this forum to be a haven with solid non bias advice filled with reason and understanding. even when that advice isnt something i wanna hear. what happened to the old posters?


We're still here. Maybe your questions, or your attitude, changed?



> i feel confident that this has cut through the haze.


Great. Sometimes, it's the nineteenth conversation that does the trick. Usually not, but I hope it is for your sake.

Good luck.


----------



## Lone Ranger (Apr 15, 2012)

PHTlump said:


> You're a teacher and you don't understand analogies? Come on. You can't understand the difference between a primary reason and an ancillary reason? Sex is a primary benefit of marriage. Take it away and you have a female roommate. You can get one of those on Craigs list in a few hours.





PHTlump said:


> You saying that your marriage is great, except for sex, is like saying that a restaurant is really great, except for the food. Well, that's the main reason most people go to a restaurant.


Your analogy is bogus. It makes the proposition that a person enters marriage to _gain_ sex. It is a dishonest use of language; there is a difference between "_Sex is a primary benefit of marriage_" and the point raised in your analogy regarding that. Which is "_is like saying that a restaurant is really great, except for the food. Well, that's the main reason most people go to a restaurant._".

_ben·e·fit [ben-uh-fit] noun, verb, ben·e·fit·ed or ben·e·fit·ted, ben·e·fit·ing or ben·e·fit·ting.
noun
1.
something that is advantageous or good; an advantage: *He explained the benefits of public ownership of the postal system*._

As you correctly said, sex is a benefit of marriage.

Your analogy implies that people go to a restaurant to eat food. That is also correct, however the two do not mesh together because:

It is not a _benefit_ to get food from a restaurant, its a core reason you go there. Much like the underlined example, straight from a dictionary.

I don't know about you, but when I get married its not to have access to sex. I would like sex, and sex *should* be given under "caring for each others needs" but it is not a CORE REASON, like when going to a restaurant to eat food.

Moreover, your analogy contains personal bias. You assume that everyone rates sex as highly in importance as you do. On a scale of 1-10, I would say that going to a restaurant with the intention of getting food, is probably a 10 on the "why I would do it" importance scale. 

I would hope for societies sake, that people are not getting married with the same 10 on that importance scale in regards to sex. Which is again, what your analogy implies.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Lone Ranger...you are right, sex is not that important to you. I get it.

Because of this, you will very likely not see any change in your sex life from the current status quo.

If sex WAS more important to you, it might change, but still might not.

I am divorced from my first marriage, in large part because there wasn't enough good sex.

I picked my second husband in large part because sex IS important to him like it is to me, and because he is an extremely sexual person, something I now understand that I require in a spouse.

If I wasn't very sexual myself, I would still be married to my ex-h and possibly even very happy.

The only thing I think you don't quite get, is that having sex as a highly important need for oneself does NOT mean that person is any less moral or decent than a person who values sex less.


----------



## Lone Ranger (Apr 15, 2012)

Faithful Wife said:


> The only thing I think you don't quite get, is that having sex as a highly important need for oneself does NOT mean that person is any less moral or decent than a person who values sex less.


I totally get that, I was just making a point how ludicrous the analogy was if it held up. It is not as black and white. I am not one to judge people like that, simply making a point, hope there are no bad feelings


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Nope, no hard feelings! I hope none by you, either. 

How has it been going anyway? Do you see any change in her so far?


----------



## Lone Ranger (Apr 15, 2012)

Mixed bag. I snapped my achilles tendon whilst at work today... Charity fun run for water aid with the kids and uhm, yeah. Gotta spend the next 3 months with this cast on my leg from thigh to toe. The joys of working in a primary school and being "the fun teacher"... Atleast the kids will have fun drawing on my cast when I go back.

The upside was that, without being TMI my wife obliged me off her own free will! Making some headway *cough*

But yea, I think people aren't wrong that it could just be a momentary improvement, will be hard to really do much about it with what happened today... But will do my best to keep my wife interested. She is trying really hard so I cant fault her at all.


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

Lone Ranger said:


> Your analogy is bogus. It makes the proposition that a person enters marriage to _gain_ sex. It is a dishonest use of language; there is a difference between "_Sex is a primary benefit of marriage_" and the point raised in your analogy regarding that. Which is "_is like saying that a restaurant is really great, except for the food. Well, that's the main reason most people go to a restaurant._".


I don't know what you teach, but I'm betting it's neither English, nor logic.



> I don't know about you, but when I get married its not to have access to sex. I would like sex, and sex *should* be given under "caring for each others needs" but it is not a CORE REASON, like when going to a restaurant to eat food.


This has nothing to do with my analogy and everything to do with your personal preferences. If you didn't get married to have a sexual relationship with your wife, that's fine. It certainly doesn't affect me. But don't pretend like you're typical and those of us who got married to have a sexual relationship are unusual. That's no different than claiming that most people go to restaurants just to read the place mats. Some people might do that. But they're unusual.

The Catholic church has been in the marriage game for thousands of years. Marriage is one of the seven sacraments. And if you have a marriage that isn't sexual, then the Pope will declare it void ab initio. It never happened. Tell the Pope that sex is just one among many benefits of marriage, no more important than many others.



> I would hope for societies sake, that people are not getting married with the same 10 on that importance scale in regards to sex. Which is again, what your analogy implies.


Why would you hope that? As I said before, if you're looking for a non-sexual relationship with a woman, there are plenty to be had. You can have nonsexual relationships with as many women as you like. If you want a female roommate to help with the dishes, you can pick one up on Craigslist right now. Marriage is different. And it's sex that makes it different.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

LR - Sorry to hear about the injury!!


----------



## Lone Ranger (Apr 15, 2012)

PHTlump said:


> I don't know what you teach, but I'm betting it's neither English, nor logic.
> 
> ....
> 
> The Catholic church has been in the marriage game for thousands of years. Marriage is one of the seven sacraments. And if you have a marriage that isn't sexual, then the Pope will declare it void ab initio. It never happened. Tell the Pope that sex is just one among many benefits of marriage, no more important than many others.


Did you really just question my logic and in the very same post bring religion into it? They are mutually exclusive...

I am not going to continue our little tit for tat, that position alone rules out pretty much all possible discussion on the subject, its fruitless to continue.


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

Lone Ranger said:


> Did you really just question my logic and in the very same post bring religion into it? They are mutually exclusive...


I'll leave aside the hostile bomb throwing. Let's just say that I can agree to disagree with your religion (hostility to organized, theistic religions) as easily as I can agree to disagree with Muslims, or Hindus, or anyone else who doesn't share my beliefs. It's sad that you can't say the same.



> I am not going to continue our little tit for tat, that position alone rules out pretty much all possible discussion on the subject, its fruitless to continue.


I understand that you're having trouble following examples and analogies. I'll apologize and try to dumb down my argument.

Here it is.

Marriage, for the vast majority of people, is a sexual relationship. Sex is one of the pillars of marriage. It is for atheists. It is for Christians. It is for Jews. It is for Hindus. A marriage with little or no sex is, by definition, a weak marriage.

Now, you take exception to that. You think that sexless marriages can be great. You think that very few people marry in order to have sex with their spouse. You're wrong. You will be back on this board, or another like it, if your marriage remains sexless for the next 5, 10, 15, or 20 years.

It's easy to skip a meal and think it's no big deal. Skip 25 meals in a row and you will probably revise your opinion. Sh!t. That was an analogy. Forget that.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

You can have successful marriages without sex - ask any Florida resident 

Sex is an indicator of other issues in a marriage, canary in mine type issue. You can have a mine without canaries...

Lets say two eldsters in Florida decide to marry in their 70s or so, and sex is not involved. Is their marriage any less valid than anyone else's??

The numbers support your statement and I do not dispute that in most marriages sex is critical. But not in all cases, assuming it is known ahead of time and is concensual.


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

john117 said:


> Lets say two eldsters in Florida decide to marry in their 70s or so, and sex is not involved. Is their marriage any less valid than anyone else's??
> 
> The numbers support your statement and I do not dispute that in most marriages sex is critical. But not in all cases, assuming it is known ahead of time and is concensual.


Sure. There are always special cases. And certainly sex becomes less of an issue for older people. However, only about half of married couples over 70 report not having sex in the prior year.

I even allow that the OP just might put much less importance on sex than is typical. But I very much doubt it. He's here. And he seems typical. A typical man who is high drive, but married to a low drive woman feels guilty about wanting sex. He rationalizes that sex isn't important. He tries to ignore his physical needs. And, over the years, the resentment usually builds to critical mass. I think the OP is in the middle of that process.


----------



## TeaLeaves4 (Feb 19, 2010)

PHTlump said:


> I don't know what you teach, but I'm betting it's neither English, nor logic.
> 
> 
> This has nothing to do with my analogy and everything to do with your personal preferences. If you didn't get married to have a sexual relationship with your wife, that's fine. It certainly doesn't affect me. But don't pretend like you're typical and those of us who got married to have a sexual relationship are unusual. That's no different than claiming that most people go to restaurants just to read the place mats. Some people might do that. But they're unusual.
> ...



I don't think he's saying sex isn't important. I think he's taking issue with your assertion that sex is the only unique component in a marriage.

I don't agree either. Take away the sex, and My relationship with my husband is far closer and more intimate than it would be with just a roommate. It's not the only thing that distinguishes a marriage.

In fact, MOST people don"t need to get married so they can "get sex".


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

TeaLeaves4 said:


> I don't think he's saying sex isn't important. I think he's taking issue with your assertion that sex is the only unique component in a marriage.
> 
> I don't agree either. Take away the sex, and My relationship with my husband is far closer and more intimate than it would be with just a roommate. It's not the only thing that distinguishes a marriage.


I disagree. I'm sure that your relationship with your husband is closer than with a roommate. However, much of that intimacy surely results from the sex you have together. Take away sex and intimacy wanes. You don't get that oxytocin fix to maintain your pair bond.



> In fact, MOST people don"t need to get married so they can "get sex".


I just disagree. But, I doubt that there are any surveys to definitively prove the issue one way or the other.


----------

