# avoiding a sexless marriage



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

First some context, than a few observations and finally a specific list against which you can measure yourself. 

Together 22+ years. Married just over 20 - 3 kids. A great, fun passionate marriage. The best part of my life. With that said I am not "naturally" sexy and my W doesn't have a naturally high drive. So how come our sex life has always been good to great? 

The short answer is:
- My W feels very "safe" around me. Financially, Physically, emotionally, mentally. She trusts me. She can tell me ANYTHING. And no matter what it is I accept it as part of her and frankly the more shocking it is - IMO - the bigger the level of trust, love and intimacy she is engaging in. 
- My W enjoys my company. She likes to spend time with me. This comment is based on the factual observation that she asks me to do a lot of "discretionary" stuff with her. 

Thats it. Those two things. She feels protected and she enjoys my company. 

And in reverse. She knows I love and respect her. That I WANT to protect/provide for her. That I am glad she enjoys my company. 

And how does that impact her behavior towards me:
She feels a genuine DESIRE to please me. To be a great partner and wife. This single factor - the desire to please - has ALWAYS BEEN THE PRIMARY DRIVER OF OUR SEX LIFE. Don't get me wrong. She will tell you that I am handsome and VERY fit. But the truth is while she has always felt some lust for me, it was never the primary driver of her behavior. And that is ok. Because her desire to please frequently put us in bed together and slowly she would get turned on. 

And that strong "DESIRE TO PLEASE" is what seems to be missing in the wives of most/all of the "nice guy" sexless marriages. 

It is best described by the exchange where the H says he is very unhappy about their sex life and the W says "I am fine with the way things are". 

If my W said to me: "I am very unhappy about "some aspect of our marriage" and I replied "I am fine with how things are" Which translates to - "I DO NOT CARE AT ALL HOW YOU FEEL". 

ALL HELL WOULD IMMEDIATELY BREAK LOSE. To give you some idea of what she would do I will point to a real world historic event. When the US invaded Panama, the Panamanian dictator took refuge in the Vatican Embassy and claimed sanctuary. And the US pyschological warfare group blared loud music day and night and employed other means of psychological warfare until he surrendered. THAT would be my lot if I ever responded to a "I am very unhappy about X" type conversation with my W. And ummm - hmmmm - while this might be an odd way to end the paragraph, that is EXACTLY how it should be. 

I am not as strong willed as my W. So if this happened in reverse my approach would not be as powerful, clever or effective as hers would be. However, my approach would work for me. It would be something along the lines of:
Me: I am very unhappy about our sex life. Am I doing/not doing something that is causing you to lack the desire to connect with me?
Her: No. Everything is fine. 
Me: Actually it isn't. I am glad you are "fine" with the rest of our marriage, but our sex life is a big deal to me and lately it has gone mostly missing. 
Her: Our sex life is fine, stop worrying so much. 
Me (very soft voice): Darling, let me finish your sentence for you as that is a skill I have developed. You say "Our sex life is fine..." The complete sentence is actually "Our sex life is fine - WITH ME". But I am confused. Because we aren't talking about you. We are talking about me. And I am NOT fine with our sex life. Nor is it even remotely ok for you to respond to my statement of unhappiness with a self focused response that "you are perfectly content". 
Her: (irritated now). Fine, I'll work on it. 
Me: (realizing that she now knows this is a big deal, and recognizing that continuing an angry convo is not a good idea): OK

If it were me - I would then give it a week. Yep - thats all. One week. Because in a bad pattern time is actually your enemy. And after that week I would begin to focus more on me and less on her. And I would expect her to get angry, try to provoke me, etc. And I would gear myself towards not reacting to that. And if she melted down, I would simply observe this: "Your needs and mine are different. They just are. But in one way they are identical. BOTH of us want to have a partner who makes a major effort to please us. To express love in the way WE want to be loved. And that is the basis for a healthy, happy marriage."



>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If you are a man and you want to have a passionate relationship with your wife:
1. ALL dominance starts in-house. That means you learn to control YOUR emotions - especially the two biggest enemies fear and uncontrolled anger.
2. True control of emotions enables great self control of your behavior. Not just the words that issue from your mouth, but your body language.
3. The baseline against which you measure behavior is the golden rule. Do NOT allow people to treat you worse than you would treat them.
4. Acknowledge that without respect you have nothing. ALL respect emanates from in-house. If you don't respect yourself, well you can finish that sentence.
5. Earn respect by performing, demand respect by inflicting swift and sure consequences when treated in an unacceptable manner.
6. Be empathetic and supportive and loving when your W is hurting.
7. Be stern and firm when she is taking her bad day/bad mood out on you.
8. Be fun to be around. Playful, upbeat, fun and funny.
9. Be around less and make it clear why when you are not being treated fairly.
10. You are allowed to have needs. Express them. You are not allowed to be needy. There is a giant difference between the two.
11. Learn your W. A husband who says "no one can understand women, does not understand his wife. This lack of knowledge is often fatal to the marriage" Pay attention - she is likely fairly consistent.
12. Accept that your W will love you MORE when you assert yourself in a rational, strong, firm and consistent manner.
13. Learn to talk a LOT LESS and communicate much more and much better with body language.


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

Your relationship sounds like mine, right down to my the testing bit. 

MEM I have beed thinking about this and although I at first thought that this approach was widely applicable, I am not sure that it is. I base that on the number of post that I have read and the uniqueness of the couples and their problem. Those elements are absent from you proposal. 

I think this approach works with two healthy well grounded people simular in personality, resources and subculture to you and Mrs. MEM. this applies to very few couples.

If men try this and fail to get results or make things worse, they may think they are the problem and not place the problem where it belongs. One size does not fit all. You have figured out what works for you and Mrs MEM but what will work for others if far more complex and needs to take into account what the couple brings to the table. There is no substitute for time, hard work and patience. . 

I have a caution, some relationship problems, can be exacerbated with these methods. That does not make the man a failure or less of a man or his wife an impossible witch. Each couple has to find their own way to make it work. It has to be highly individualized based on knowing ones partner well and a willingness to adjust to each other. In addition to seek professional help for serious or intractable problems. 

There are overriding principals though and those are, as you say, repect, empathy, emotional control and a desire to make ones partner happy. I did not mention love that's important too but it is seldom enough. There are some individuals who lack control or emotional stability and these are not candidates for the MEM Method. These are couple who need I and MC. 

I challenge your contention that this is widely applicable. I admire your relationship with your wife and think you are very fortunate. I also admire your commitment to share you knowledge.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

T,
I am glad you see all the good in your H and he in you. It is important to me that my W realize I see her as beautiful - inside and out. One day when she was feeling insecure she wanted to know what I would change about her. 

It was a sincere question. She wanted to know. 

But the thing is - this isn't a cafeteria because everything is interrelated in a complex way. If I could "make" her more patient, she might be less funny. Or she might have a lower sense of urgency when something important arises. So I gave her my one true - never gonna change - answer.

"I wouldn't change anything about you. Not one single thing. I don't know if you are perfect, but you are perfect for ME".

As for both people being committed I get that 1000 percent. During our first two years we had brief periods where she questioned whether we should be together. During those times she was consistently angry and mean to me. And each time I quickly got to the point of flat out asking her "do you WANT to be together, if not lets part friends now". And each time that completely stopped the dynamic. And after those first couple years, she almost totally stopped doing that. 





Trenton said:


> Hi Mem, I like your post. It's sort of along the lines of what RDJ was saying but expands to include easily understandable examples.
> 
> I am not an easy women to live with although I'm sure you never would have guessed that. I am very passionate, strong willed and believe in the best of people. I have lots of ideas and not all of them are good. In fact, some are complete duds. My husband handles this calmly and with good nature--always being my support system and helping me shine even when I am being a complete a$$.
> 
> ...


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Catherine,
I believe that this is ONLY applicable to males who are capable of being high functioning. Who are capable of putting their wives first. If they feel it is their god given right to be just as emotional as she is - this isn't going to work. If they actually believe that procreation is symmetrical (he comes really hard), she carries the baby to term - this isn't going to work. 

If he isn't CAPABLE of being what I think of as a MAN, then this won't work. If he is not able to control his fear and it's next door neighbor - anger - this isn't going to work. 

This weekend I realized just how much positivie bonding we get from our frequent non-sexual contact. The long full body hugs face to face, and spooned from behind. The extended back massages back scratches that happen most nights. 

The little exchanges after we get in bed.
H: Babe, do you want a club soda and a centrum
W: Oh don't get out of bed you are already comfortable
H: Getting out of bed smiling - I desperately need to burn a few calories - what better way - 2 ice cubes or 3?
W: Reaching our her hand for the glass, "thank you that was so sweet"
H: Getting back in bed glancing at the nightstand clock and seeing how late it is: "Oh my, only 10 minutes to the witching hour and I have not yet done the most important thing of the day"
W: Looking over at me smiling
H: I almost forgot to tell my W how much I love her

Later on in bed:
W: Do you want to (she looks tired)
H: I do want you, and love you enough to let you glide off into sleepy times in the next few minutes. 
W: Are you frustrated.
H: I now have a day of delicious anticipation in front of me. Who can complain about that.
W: Love you
H: Sleep well






Catherine602 said:


> Your relationship sounds like mine, right down to my the testing bit.
> 
> MEM I have beed thinking about this and although I at first thought that this approach was widely applicable, I am not sure that it is. I base that on the number of post that I have read and the uniqueness of the couples and their problem. Those elements are absent from you proposal.
> 
> ...


----------



## FrankKissel (Nov 14, 2011)

A generally excellent post, but a couple of items here really raised my eyebrows, or at least raise questions, namely points 5 and 9. 
Regarding 5, how is it you suggest a guy enact "swift and sure" consequences on his wife when he feels disrespected. I think I can safely assume you're not suggesting anything physical here - and I hope everyone else is smart enough to recognize that - but what do you suggest? You can't ground your wife. Or take away her phone, send her to bed with dessert, take away her car privileges, etc. So what do you mean? At best the concept seems a tad paternalistic, but perhaps I'm reading it wrong.

As for 9, that seems another way of suggesting one should go away and pout when he doesn't get his way - the marital version of "I"m taking my ball and going home." What could be less manly/alpha than slunking off from your wife when you feel you've been wronged?
But again, perhaps I'm misunderstanding.

Anyhow, great post overall.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Frank,
Great point on 5. I will modify it to say "non-physical" consequences. 

Basically 5 means that you utilize a "subtractive" approach. You reduce/eliminate some/all the optional "loving" things that you normally do. For instance all of our phone conversations end with "love you". Well except if we are in conflict in which case the rest of the conversation is short. I am polite, friendly, upbeat etc. I simply keep to the bare minimum and don't say "ILY". This only happens when she has breached a boundary with me and is digging in to see what will happen. And I don't ever do that over normal day to day hiccups. I do it over core "respect" issues. 

And during the time between an "event" and her either explaining or apologizing - no hugs - no tough of any type. 

And no "anger" either. I don't stomp, raise my voice, break dishes, etc. Nor do I say anything at all "mean" to her. I simply turn down the temperature and wait until she is ready to try to resolve whatever it was. FYI: A sincere apology and promise not to repeat the behavior get a quick, low key acceptance. I don't "pile on". 

As for 9, same type of thing. Schedule wise she is normally my highest priority by far. But when I am on the receiving end of boundary breaching behavior I tend to modify my schedule. 

Just a quick example on that front. One time in our marriage - last year - my W mentioned needing space. I didn't argue. Didn't ask why. Didn't sulk/whine about it. I just started scheduling weekend visits to a bunch of male friends I hadn't seen in a while. No threat to her in terms of other women. I simply went and had fun with my friends. 

During the 3rd weekend in 5 weeks she said "I miss you". My response was something along the lines of: "Thank you for not saying you missed me during my other trips. Thank you for being honest with me. And I am glad you miss me". 

And then I stopped the trips. 





FrankKissel said:


> A generally excellent post, but a couple of items here really raised my eyebrows, or at least raise questions, namely points 5 and 9.
> Regarding 5, how is it you suggest a guy enact "swift and sure" consequences on his wife when he feels disrespected. I think I can safely assume you're not suggesting anything physical here - and I hope everyone else is smart enough to recognize that - but what do you suggest? You can't ground your wife. Or take away her phone, send her to bed with dessert, take away her car privileges, etc. So what do you mean? At best the concept seems a tad paternalistic, but perhaps I'm reading it wrong.
> 
> As for 9, that seems another way of suggesting one should go away and pout when he doesn't get his way - the marital version of "I"m taking my ball and going home." What could be less manly/alpha than slunking off from your wife when you feel you've been wronged?
> ...


----------



## Sawney Beane (May 1, 2011)

MEM11363 said:


> First some context, than a few observations and finally a specific list against which you can measure yourself.
> 
> So how come our sex life has always been good to great?
> 
> ...


Some people are simply unable to feel that level of trust. They don't feel able to tell their partner their fears, for the very good reason that "anything they say may be taken down and used against them in evidence". SA's thread on transparency in the general area touched on this 



> And how does that impact her behavior towards me:
> She feels a genuine DESIRE to please me. To be a great partner and wife. This single factor - the desire to please - has ALWAYS BEEN THE PRIMARY DRIVER OF OUR SEX LIFE. Don't get me wrong. She will tell you that I am handsome and VERY fit. But the truth is while she has always felt some lust for me, it was never the primary driver of her behavior. And that is ok. Because her desire to please frequently put us in bed together and slowly she would get turned on.
> 
> And that strong "DESIRE TO PLEASE" is what seems to be missing in the wives of most/all of the "nice guy" sexless marriages.
> ...


The difference is that you are willing to pull the house down on top of yourself. Most people aren't. And even if you are willing to, it doesn't make the other person have a DESIRE to please. You can use it as a means to MAKE them do what you want through fear of consequences, but that's a world away from a "desire to please".

So, nice simple question: how do *you* (not them, not god, not blind luck) turn someone with an entitled mindset into someone with a desire to please?

My guess is the short answer is you don't. By good luck and / or good management, MEM, you married a woman with that mindset, which you have too. 

If only one of you has that mindset, the other is not likely to grow it over time. If this truly is the answer, then it's fixed at the start of the relationship and nothing you can do will alter it.




> If you are a man and you want to have a passionate relationship with your wife:
> 1. ALL dominance starts in-house. That means you learn to control YOUR emotions - especially the two biggest enemies fear and uncontrolled anger.
> 2. True control of emotions enables great self control of your behavior. Not just the words that issue from your mouth, but your body language.
> 3. The baseline against which you measure behavior is the golden rule. Do NOT allow people to treat you worse than you would treat them.
> ...


All of which is absolutely true. But with the greatest respect, not one word of what you wrote above will make someone with an entitled mindset grow a desire to please.


----------



## Kobo (May 13, 2010)

Sawney Beane said:


> So, nice simple question: how do *you* (not them, not god, not blind luck) turn someone with an entitled mindset into someone with a desire to please?


I think this is where so many go wrong. Your focus should never be to change someone or their behavior. Your focus should be to understand, acknowledge and express your needs, desires, and boundaries. You need to be able to be true to them.


----------



## RDJ (Jun 8, 2011)

Mem11363,

Good post!

I believe what you are saying, Trenton is confirming, and I try to express myself, is that a man lives by a set of quality values. When he does, his wife is inspired through him and responds to his lead.


----------



## Conrad (Aug 6, 2010)

RDJ,

I think what Sawney is saying is that we need to be certain our spouse isn't someone who is prone to "hurting themselves in order to hurt you".

That's a destructive behavior that makes "pulling down the house on top of you" rather risky.

We should absolutely make someone else own their own chaos. Yet, escalation of conflict isn't your friend.


----------



## RDJ (Jun 8, 2011)

Conrad said:


> RDJ,
> 
> I think what Sawney is saying is that we need to be certain our spouse isn't someone who is prone to "hurting themselves in order to hurt you".
> 
> ...


Agreed! Boundaries!


----------



## Sawney Beane (May 1, 2011)

Kobo said:


> I think this is where so many go wrong. Your focus should never be to change someone or their behavior. Your focus should be to understand, acknowledge and express your needs, desires, and boundaries. You need to be able to be true to them.


By understanding, acknowledging and expressing your needs, boundaries and desires, and being true to them makes A.N. Other person meet them how, precisely?

As a Romani, I understand, acknowledge and express my needs, desires, and boundaries, but it has f*ck-all influence on racist thought. Whether you look on a wider level like this or an individual level, the answer is the same - stating your case won't make anyone meet your needs.


----------



## Conrad (Aug 6, 2010)

It gives them the choice of whether to meet them or not.

Do you really want to "make" someone else do something?

Why not just pull out a gun? That will work - at least once.


----------



## Tall Average Guy (Jul 26, 2011)

Sawney Beane said:


> By understanding, acknowledging and expressing your needs, boundaries and desires, and being true to them makes A.N. Other person meet them how, precisely?
> 
> As a Romani, I understand, acknowledge and express my needs, desires, and boundaries, but it has f*ck-all influence on racist thought. Whether you look on a wider level like this or an individual level, the answer is the same - stating your case won't make anyone meet your needs.


Who said it was suppose to? Expressing all of this provides that information to your spouse. They can then choose whether or not to work to meet those needs and abide by those boundaries. You can't make anyone do anything. You can only control yourself.

To take your example, suppose the parent of your child's friend expresses a racist comment around your child. You set forth your boundary, such as if you make comments like this again, my son will not be able to get together with your son at your house. The parent now has a choice. You can't make them do anything, but you can inform them of how you will react.


----------



## Sawney Beane (May 1, 2011)

Tall Average Guy said:


> Who said it was suppose to? Expressing all of this provides that information to your spouse. They can then choose whether or not to work to meet those needs and abide by those boundaries. You can't make anyone do anything. You can only control yourself.
> 
> To take your example, suppose the parent of your child's friend expresses a racist comment around your child. You set forth your boundary, such as if you make comments like this again, my son will not be able to get together with your son at your house. The parent now has a choice. You can't make them do anything, but you can inform them of how you will react.


Which gets needs met how? This is about how meeting needs and getting needs met avoids a sexless marriage. If there's no possible way to get your needs met except by having the blind luck to marry someone who is willing to in the first place, why bother with the idea of setting boundaries?


----------



## Tall Average Guy (Jul 26, 2011)

Sawney Beane said:


> Which gets needs met how? This is about how meeting needs and getting needs met avoids a sexless marriage. If there's no possible way to get your needs met except by having the blind luck to marry someone who is willing to in the first place, why bother with the idea of setting boundaries?


How can others meet your needs met if you don't inform them of those needs? The first step is figuring out yourself what your needs are. The second step is informing others what those needs are. Only then can others decide whether they want to work to meet your needs. 

Once you know whether they want to meet your needs or not, you can decide how you want to proceed in that relationship.

I don't understand your resistance to this. These are steps to getting you there, but as you continually point out, there is no guarantee that this will work. But if you can't explain what your needs are to another, how can you expect them to meet those needs?


----------



## Sawney Beane (May 1, 2011)

Tall Average Guy said:


> How can others meet your needs met if you don't inform them of those needs? The first step is figuring out yourself what your needs are. The second step is informing others what those needs are. Only then can others decide whether they want to work to meet your needs.
> 
> Once you know whether they want to meet your needs or not, you can decide how you want to proceed in that relationship.
> 
> I don't understand your resistance to this. These are steps to getting you there, but as you continually point out, there is no guarantee that this will work. But if you can't explain what your needs are to another, how can you expect them to meet those needs?


I'm working on the principle that the situation is way, way past the point of having to explain what each persons needs are. They both know. Like I said, way, way, _way_ back, MEM is very lucky that his wife's default position (and MEM's too) is a desire to meet the other's needs. 

If the other person's default position is one of entitlement, how does telling them what your needs are, over and over again, move them to a position of desiring to meet those needs?


----------



## Tall Average Guy (Jul 26, 2011)

Sawney Beane said:


> I'm working on the principle that the situation is way, way past the point of having to explain what each persons needs are. They both know. Like I said, way, way, _way_ back, MEM is very lucky that his wife's default position (and MEM's too) is a desire to meet the other's needs.
> 
> If the other person's default position is one of entitlement, how does telling them what your needs are, over and over again, move them to a position of desiring to meet those needs?


Why would you work at that principle? All kinds of people come here, from those that validate your assumption to those who are at a lull and want to get back on track. Being able to express your needs certainly helps those couples in a lull.

It also helps those in your default position. If my wife felt entitled, then at least I have that confirmed. I know what my needs are and I have expressed them to her. I have done all that I can to help the situation, and then can move forward knowing I have done that. Moving forward can be anything from divorcing to emotionally separating myself from my spouse and doing what I can to make myself happy. This has value.

Again, what is the issue with this? You seem to be advocating sitting there and being quiet about what you need, never telling your spouse, and pretending you have no needs. How does that help?


----------



## Sawney Beane (May 1, 2011)

Tall Average Guy said:


> Why would you work at that principle? All kinds of people come here, from those that validate your assumption to those who are at a lull and want to get back on track. Being able to express your needs certainly helps those couples in a lull.


Why not? Is the idea that people actually do get to a stage where they know one anothers' needs mythical or something? Some people actually DO come here in exactly that position too. Are they wrong as well?



> Again, what is the issue with this? You seem to be advocating sitting there and being quiet about what you need, never telling your spouse, and pretending you have no needs. How does that help?


No, I'm not. I am asking how, if you are not in the fortunate position that MEM and his wife are in, a partner of either sex goets their partner to go from entitled to desiring to meet the other's needs...

Way back MEM said that was one of the reasons his marriage is so good. My question was if someone's wife / husband does not default to meeting the other's needs, but expresses entitlement, how does someone approach that. I asked MEM, because he's a clever guy and brings a lot of smart to the situation. It's nothing at all to do with not expressing your needs. If you read MEM's lists / flowcharts (whatever descriptor you want to use), the situation you describe is up near the top. Once someone has got past that and to the point where their partner cannot NOT be aware of their needs outwith not being able to speak the same language, does he have advice for people to try to deal with enetitled mindsets?


----------



## Kobo (May 13, 2010)

Sawney Beane said:


> By understanding, acknowledging and expressing your needs, boundaries and desires, and being true to them makes A.N. Other person meet them how, precisely?
> 
> As a Romani, I understand, acknowledge and express my needs, desires, and boundaries, but it has f*ck-all influence on racist thought. Whether you look on a wider level like this or an individual level, the answer is the same - stating your case won't make anyone meet your needs.


When I state that "Your focus should never be to change someone or their behavior." I mean just that. Your goal should not be to change them. It should be to clearly inform them of what your needs are and to do your best to be the partner that they desire. You can hope that they will see that and work to meet your needs because they love you and desire to see you happy. If they don't feel that your happiness is important enough to them that they change then you have a decision to make. 


Short Answer: Stop relying on other people to make you happy


----------



## Tall Average Guy (Jul 26, 2011)

Sawney Beane said:


> Why not? Is the idea that people actually do get to a stage where they know one anothers' needs mythical or something? Some people actually DO come here in exactly that position too. Are they wrong as well?


They are not wrong at all. Yet your attack on this method is that because it won't help a subset it is not useful. I think that is wrong both because it is help ful for all invovled. It may not solve the problem, but it gets you a step or two closer. That is a good thing.



> No, I'm not. I am asking how, if you are not in the fortunate position that MEM and his wife are in, a partner of either sex goets their partner to go from entitled to desiring to meet the other's needs...
> 
> Way back MEM said that was one of the reasons his marriage is so good. My question was if someone's wife / husband does not default to meeting the other's needs, but expresses entitlement, how does someone approach that. I asked MEM, because he's a clever guy and brings a lot of smart to the situation. It's nothing at all to do with not expressing your needs. If you read MEM's lists / flowcharts (whatever descriptor you want to use), the situation you describe is up near the top. Once someone has got past that and to the point where their partner cannot NOT be aware of their needs outwith not being able to speak the same language, does he have advice for people to try to deal with enetitled mindsets?


Sure, and he has given that advice, from turning down the thermostat, to emotionally withdrawing to divorcing. In essensce, if your spouse is not willing to work to meet your needs, stop working to meet their needs.


----------



## FrankKissel (Nov 14, 2011)

Sawney Beane said:


> No, I'm not. I am asking how, if you are not in the fortunate position that MEM and his wife are in, a partner of either sex goets their partner to go from entitled to desiring to meet the other's needs...
> 
> Way back MEM said that was one of the reasons his marriage is so good. My question was if someone's wife / husband does not default to meeting the other's needs, but expresses entitlement, how does someone approach that. I asked MEM, because he's a clever guy and brings a lot of smart to the situation. It's nothing at all to do with not expressing your needs. If you read MEM's lists / flowcharts (whatever descriptor you want to use), the situation you describe is up near the top. Once someone has got past that and to the point where their partner cannot NOT be aware of their needs outwith not being able to speak the same language, does he have advice for people to try to deal with enetitled mindsets?


1. Did your spouse always have an entitled mindset at a default? If so, why did you choose to make a lifelong commitment to that person? Did you expect change?

2. If this default position is something that's arisen since marriage, what caused it? I doubt your wife woke up one morning and decided she was a narcissistic b!tch. Something changed the dynamic of your relationship. Perhaps you're not the only one whose needs go unmet. I don't know ... just asking.

3. If you're needs are so great, and you're wife - knowing full well what they are, as you claim - absolutely refuses to accomodate or compromise, why do you stay with her and/or accomodate her needs?

p.s. I suppose one could day MEM is in a fortunate position, but as with most things in life I suspect he and his wife made their own luck here. They chose the right partner and worked to foster a relationship where the needs of both were known and honored.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Sawney Beane (May 1, 2011)

Tall Average Guy said:


> They are not wrong at all. Yet your attack on this method is that because it won't help a subset it is not useful. I think that is wrong both because it is help ful for all invovled. It may not solve the problem, but it gets you a step or two closer. That is a good thing.


For the record, I'm not saying it isn't useful because it doesn't help everyone. However, MEM made it abundantly clear that his marriage works because the default position is to be meeters of needs. Therefore, if his advice is predicated on this, then it needs to come with that caveat.


> Sure, and he has given that advice, from turning down the thermostat, to emotionally withdrawing to divorcing. In essensce, if your spouse is not willing to work to meet your needs, stop working to meet their needs.


Which is at odds with being a meeter of needs by default - the meeting of needs is conditional on having needs met. I (and it may be just me) perceive a lack of internal consistency, and that bothers me.


----------



## Sawney Beane (May 1, 2011)

The bit that goes before is irrelevant - my W and I are default meeters of one another's needs, but it's a case of trying to advise people who's position isn't like that. Some people do have spouses with an entitled outlook - you won't have to read very far on this site to find an example. MEM's advice may not help if it's predicated on a default position that they don't have. In that case, the question is "how do you get to the stage where you CAN benefit from MEM's advice"?


FrankKissel said:


> p.s. I suppose one could day MEM is in a fortunate position, but as with most things in life I suspect he and his wife made their own luck here. They chose the right partner and worked to foster a relationship where the needs of both were known and honored.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I strongly suspect you're right and MEM has more than the touch of the Gary Player (I think) about him, in that the harder he practices, the luckier he gets. BUT, if all of that is based on blind luck in getting the perfect person to start with, then work is of less use. It's a question of how much is the naked luck of chosing the right partner and how much is the luck you make by hard work? Because let's face it, without some innate talent, Gary Player wouldn't have got as far on hard work alone.


----------



## Tall Average Guy (Jul 26, 2011)

Sawney Beane said:


> Which is at odds with being a meeter of needs by default - the meeting of needs is conditional on having needs met. I (and it may be just me) perceive a lack of internal consistency, and that bothers me.


I fail to see how that is inconsistent. In fact, it is right up front in MEMS description.

This exchange is the basis for most all who are emotionally healthy. If you wife intentionally quit meeting your needs, you would not keep meeting hers for long.


----------



## Sawney Beane (May 1, 2011)

Tall Average Guy said:


> I fail to see how that is inconsistent. In fact, it is right up front in MEMS description.
> 
> This exchange is the basis for most all who are emotionally healthy. If you wife intentionally quit meeting your needs, you would not keep meeting hers for long.


The way I see it, someone who is a default meeter of needs only because their needs are met isn't a meeter of needs by default. They are a meeter of needs, conditional on their needs being met.

I don't say it's wrong, just that if you have to have your needs met to be a meeter of needs,you aint it by default...


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

RDJ,
I think the "inspire your partner" is true "provided":
- You have not passed the point of no return. That varies by marriage but in some cases the damage of not enforcing your boundaries causes "permanent irreparable harm" to your partners view of you. This isn't a rational thing at all. It is a "primal" wiring response. 
- I believe this is highly correlated to duration. The longer you fail to enforce your boundaries the lower the likelihood of recovery. 
- Your spouse is somewhat inclined towards rational behavior. 

A few folks have mentioned that their partners are more inclined to burn the house down when faced with a demand that they respect your boundaries. With those partners you have simple choices:
- Accept that they will never treat you well and stay with them permanently (and stay sexless for life) because you aren't willing to incur the cost of divorce and start over.
- Directly tell them you are going to go outside the marriage and you respect their choice to do whatever they like.
- Cheat and hope they don't catch you
- Divorce them




RDJ said:


> Mem11363,
> 
> Good post!
> 
> I believe what you are saying, Trenton is confirming, and I try to express myself, is that a man lives by a set of quality values. When he does, his wife is inspired through him and responds to his lead.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

SB,
This is where we have to agree to partly disagree. 

Where we agree: I was lucky. I admit it. I married someone who loves and values "my core attributes", and who also loves and values the way I interact with her. I had a very limited understanding of the marital dynamic when we married. 

Where we disagree: It was not luck that I eliminated many potential partners before meeting my W based on common sense evaluation of their long term suitability. 

I have read legions of posts that go like this:
- As soon as we got engaged he/she began to deprioritize me
- When we married it got worse
- After our first child worse still
- After our last child they stopped caring at all about me

Each of those steps requires your ACTIVE consent. There is NO WAY I would have moved forward to any of those stages if I felt that my needs had become a low priority to her. The folks who continue to bond themselves more tightly to an ill behaved partner are not unlucky, they are simply unwise. This wasn't luck on my part, it was common sense. 

I was however "lucky" in a different way. After our last child I happened to pick the right start up. We went from comfortable to VERY comfortable. I would be lying if I said that didn't impact my W's view of me. It did and it does. And that actually was mostly luck and a lot of hard work. 

And then I also have one gigantic wiring advantage: When treated badly my risk tolerance becomes near infinite. When my better half has behaved badly and then escalated, my reaction has always been the same. I don't want you to stay with me unless you WANT to be with me. And that response is delivered in a low affect manner. And I am convinced that it is part of the reason we have a happy (if occassionally volatile) marriage. 





Sawney Beane said:


> Which gets needs met how? This is about how meeting needs and getting needs met avoids a sexless marriage. If there's no possible way to get your needs met except by having the blind luck to marry someone who is willing to in the first place, why bother with the idea of setting boundaries?


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

This is a continuum. At the one end is unconditional love which often brings out the worst in your partner. At the other is a never ending tit-for-tat on positive and negative things. 

I like to think that I have a huge capacity to continue to give when events beyond our/her control get in the way of my needs being met. I also have to admit that if/when she has seemed indifferent to my needs for no apparent reason, I have inflicted frost bite on her. Not sure how that fits into your model. 




Sawney Beane said:


> The way I see it, someone who is a default meeter of needs only because their needs are met isn't a meeter of needs by default. They are a meeter of needs, conditional on their needs being met.
> 
> I don't say it's wrong, just that if you have to have your needs met to be a meeter of needs,you aint it by default...


----------



## RDJ (Jun 8, 2011)

MEM11363 said:


> RDJ,
> I think the "inspire your partner" is true "provided":
> - You have not passed the point of no return. That varies by marriage but in some cases the damage of not enforcing your boundaries causes "permanent irreparable harm" to your partners view of you. This isn't a rational thing at all. It is a "primal" wiring response.
> - I believe this is highly correlated to duration. The longer you fail to enforce your boundaries the lower the likelihood of recovery.
> ...


Mem,

I can only speak from my own perspective/experience, but I would have to agree.


----------



## Conrad (Aug 6, 2010)

I don't think "unconditional love" brings out the worst in your partner.

As you have said in the past, "unconditional relationship stability" is the real enemy.

If someone is defiant and entitled? Let them have what they say they want. You decide where to go from there.


----------



## alphaomega (Nov 7, 2010)

I love lamp.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Sawney Beane (May 1, 2011)

MEM11363 said:


> SB,
> This is where we have to agree to partly disagree.
> 
> Where we agree: I was lucky. I admit it. I married someone who loves and values "my core attributes", and who also loves and values the way I interact with her. I had a very limited understanding of the marital dynamic when we married.
> ...


Mem, thanks for replying. I'm sure you did evaluate. TBH, I'm sure most people do. The success rate seems, well, variable, at best. There also seems to be a degree (based on what's written here) whereby traits that seem oh so endearing before marriage become intensely irritating afterwards...

I've never doubted that you have "Gary Player luck" - I just wondered how much was actual luck and how much was work!



> I have read legions of posts that go like this:
> - As soon as we got engaged he/she began to deprioritize me
> - When we married it got worse
> - After our first child worse still
> ...


The thing is that some of the steps above don't come with an "undo". You can walk away from an engagement / marriage, but you can't unmake the child and the commitment you ought to have to them. At this stage, if the spouse depriotises, the child is still present.




> I was however "lucky" in a different way. After our last child I happened to pick the right start up. We went from comfortable to VERY comfortable. I would be lying if I said that didn't impact my W's view of me. It did and it does. And that actually was mostly luck and a lot of hard work.


Isn't it always? But if picking the right start up _is_ actually pure luck, what's the advice to others? The work will only provide benefit if you've picked the right thing to work on. 

"Get lucky" might be true, but it isn't necessarily very helpful



> And then I also have one gigantic wiring advantage: When treated badly my risk tolerance becomes near infinite. When my better half has behaved badly and then escalated, my reaction has always been the same. I don't want you to stay with me unless you WANT to be with me. And that response is delivered in a low affect manner. And I am convinced that it is part of the reason we have a happy (if occassionally volatile) marriage.


I think the problem sometimes arises where people have children - at that point, the risk of loss of the children becomes too great a risk. No matter how much they might be prepard to never see the husband / wife ever again and take the financial hit, the children are too big a deal. Presumably you didn't feel like this?


----------



## Hurra (Sep 13, 2009)

MEM11363 said:


> I am not as strong willed as my W. So if this happened in reverse my approach would not be as powerful, clever or effective as hers would be. However, my approach would work for me. It would be something along the lines of:
> Me: I am very unhappy about our sex life. Am I doing/not doing something that is causing you to lack the desire to connect with me?
> Her: No. Everything is fine.


This looks good just to read it but in reality (and maybe only the reality of the marriage I am in) this is not how it would go down. Her response would be to get upset, accuse me of not being happy at all and that I regret ever getting married, that our marriage is in trouble, etc etc. She would break down and withdrawal and then I have major damage control to take care of because it just blew up in my face.

But an idea from this thread or one of the other parts gave me an idea. Instead of focusing the attention of how unhappy I am, I should place the attention on her. Someone suggested a random comment like (and I modified it here): "Do you ever get horny in the middle of the day? I do, especially when I think about you wearing that <insert article of clothing here>".

If she says no, you ask 'why not'? When she gives her excuse, you respond disappointed and say "that doesn't really reassure me" in a calm tone. Leave it at that. You could also try while on the couch (with no intention on following through regardless) "if I moved towards you and started to undo your pants, what would you do?" If she gives any type of opposing answer, then just say "Just wondering". All this subtle comments will let her realize what you are thinking and what you want without coming out and saying "I'm not happy".

Another might be to recall a time what she was actually horny and desired you. You ask if you remember that time. She will say yes, and may appear she wishes it never happened, but you can recall how much you enjoyed yourself and wonder out loud why 'we' do not do stuff like that anymore. Her answer may shed light, especially what is between the lines.


----------



## Tall Average Guy (Jul 26, 2011)

Hurra said:


> This looks good just to read it but in reality (and maybe only the reality of the marriage I am in) this is not how it would go down. Her response would be to get upset, accuse me of not being happy at all and that I regret ever getting married, that our marriage is in trouble, etc etc. She would break down and withdrawal and then I have major damage control to take care of because it just blew up in my face.


Why do you have to do damage control?


----------



## Kobo (May 13, 2010)

MEM11363 said:


> SB,
> The folks who continue to bond themselves more tightly to an ill behaved partner are not unlucky, they are simply unwise. This wasn't luck on my part, it was common sense.


Said perfectly


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Hurra,
You cannot be helped because you are afraid of your W. It really is that simple. 

I remember your post about the night you were giving her a neck/back massage and she made a comment about tickling your willy/giving you a handjob. And you got all excited and she gave you the "I'm tired/maybe tomorrow" and then didn't follow through. No man with an OUNCE of alpha would tolerate that. 

So your post below reads like this. She plays the "I am mad at you BECAUSE you are mad at me" game with you. And when she does you fold and apologize. 

You have ZERO hope of improving your marriage because you are too afraid to actually stand up for yourself. FWIW she likes bullying you. It is fun for her. BUT it is a massize desire killer. Hence your terrible sex life. 




Hurra said:


> This looks good just to read it but in reality (and maybe only the reality of the marriage I am in) this is not how it would go down. Her response would be to get upset, accuse me of not being happy at all and that I regret ever getting married, that our marriage is in trouble, etc etc. She would break down and withdrawal and then I have major damage control to take care of because it just blew up in my face.
> 
> But an idea from this thread or one of the other parts gave me an idea. Instead of focusing the attention of how unhappy I am, I should place the attention on her. Someone suggested a random comment like (and I modified it here): "Do you ever get horny in the middle of the day? I do, especially when I think about you wearing that <insert article of clothing here>".
> 
> ...


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

So ummm my W sort of demanded traditional roles from the get go. We fought over it intensely for 6+ months. She beat me into submission at which point I became the sole breadwinner and she the stay at home mom. She treated it like a true "job" and was great at it. Within a year I saw how well it was working and never brought it up again. And we did that division of labor for 18 years at which point she chose to return to work. 

IF we had parted ways, I would have continued to see the kids almost as much as I do now. I have always travelled a lot. I absolutely would not have contested full custody for her - she is better at that than I am. And because she was always good about money and we lived WAY below our means, the kids would not have seen a noticeable change in standard of living. 






Sawney Beane said:


> Mem, thanks for replying. I'm sure you did evaluate. TBH, I'm sure most people do. The success rate seems, well, variable, at best. There also seems to be a degree (based on what's written here) whereby traits that seem oh so endearing before marriage become intensely irritating afterwards...
> 
> I've never doubted that you have "Gary Player luck" - I just wondered how much was actual luck and how much was work!
> 
> ...


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

SB,
You are right that having children represents a giant commitment level and simply cannot be “undone”. It is also true that most people want more than one child. And that means if you get deprioritized after child one, you can and should have a conversation about that being your only child. You can recalibrate a marriage in one year over this. And by holding firm on this point, you can also make sure your partner really, truly understands that you are not simply there for their convenience. And I think this message can be delivered in a calm, constructive manner:
“I need to talk to you about something important, … while I always expected our children to come first, I never expected to be deprioritized to the degree I have been. So much so that if I had to decide right now, I would not have any more children. “ 
And then watch what happens. A decent partner will “Wake up”, a bad partner will attack you for “not understanding how hard it is”. And a sane response to that is: “I am not saying it is easy for you. I am just not willing to add children into a marriage where after just one child, my core needs are being ignored.” A tricky partner will improve their behavior for a short time and then try to press you to have a second child. Generally speaking, the bigger their hurry, the stronger their intent to revert back to ignoring you once pregnant. 
As always, the areas where I focus are high risk because they are the things that really “matter” to your partner. A highly aggressive partner “might” take an extreme position along the lines of:
-	Nothing is wrong, they are treating you great
-	If you will not have a second child and a third, etc. they will divorce you

And then you have to decide what you want to do. Generally, giving in to emotional extortion (which is what this is) creates a marriage where you have little say in how you are treated, or what happens with the kids. Because there is always the threat of “I will leave you unless….”. 

I firmly believe that in most screwed up marriages, the huge red flags were waving prior to child number one being conceived. They start waving after engagement, and get worse after marriage. I have read so many posts describing multiple years of bad marriage before the first child. And other posts where things crashed after the first child and they proceeded to have 2-3-4 more children spread out over a decade thereby locking themselves into an additional decade of being stuck if they won't leave when the kids are at home. 

And those posts are just bizarre. After the first child "description of terrible behavior towards themselves", three years later she told me she wanted a second child so we had sex for a few months and she got pregnant with our second child and then things got even worse. 

And I read that thinking - "Are you really that clueless"?




Sawney Beane said:


> Mem, thanks for replying. I'm sure you did evaluate. TBH, I'm sure most people do. The success rate seems, well, variable, at best. There also seems to be a degree (based on what's written here) whereby traits that seem oh so endearing before marriage become intensely irritating afterwards...
> 
> I've never doubted that you have "Gary Player luck" - I just wondered how much was actual luck and how much was work!
> 
> ...


----------



## Sawney Beane (May 1, 2011)

Mem, 

you are, IMO, the wisest of men here. 



MEM11363 said:


> I think this message can be delivered in a calm, constructive manner:
> “I need to talk to you about something important, … while I always expected our children to come first, I never expected to be deprioritized to the degree I have been. So much so that if I had to decide right now, I would not have any more children. “
> And then watch what happens. A decent partner will “Wake up”, a bad partner will attack you for “not understanding how hard it is”. And a sane response to that is: “I am not saying it is easy for you. I am just not willing to add children into a marriage where after just one child, my core needs are being ignored.” A tricky partner will improve their behavior for a short time and then try to press you to have a second child. Generally speaking, the bigger their hurry, the stronger their intent to revert back to ignoring you once pregnant.


The one flaw I see in this plan would be that you won't know if the change is "real" until the next kid is on the way / born. OK, you wouldn't fall for it a THIRD time, but by them you are hooked in with kid #2.



> And then you have to decide what you want to do. Generally, giving in to emotional extortion (which is what this is) creates a marriage where you have little say in how you are treated, or what happens with the kids. Because there is always the threat of “I will leave you unless….”.


Isn't this equally emotional extortion? I'm uneasy with things that are seen as bad if applied to you but OK to do to others...



> I firmly believe that in most screwed up marriages, the huge red flags were waving prior to child number one being conceived. They start waving after engagement, and get worse after marriage. I have read so many posts describing multiple years of bad marriage before the first child. And other posts where things crashed after the first child and they proceeded to have 2-3-4 more children spread out over a decade thereby locking themselves into an additional decade of being stuck if they won't leave when the kids are at home.
> 
> And those posts are just bizarre. After the first child "description of terrible behavior towards themselves", three years later she told me she wanted a second child so we had sex for a few months and she got pregnant with our second child and then things got even worse.
> 
> And I read that thinking - "Are you really that clueless"?


Ah, you're right - but where's the fun agreeing right off the bat?

And seriously, picking arguements apart is how they become stronger when they're woven back together.

Good work, Mem.


----------



## Duke (May 15, 2011)

MEM, thank you for all your insights. They are very helpful.


MEM11363 said:


> ...And I read that thinking - "Are you really that clueless"?


On the one hand, I can see why you would think that. On the other hand, some people, myself included, don't have a knack for relationships or people skills in general. There is no instruction manual. If a guy doesn't have a good mentor, if his parents did not have a strong marriage, he could struggle for a long time.


----------

