# What I don't get about sexless marriages



## Plan 9 from OS (Jul 13, 2012)

Reading here and other places, it seems like your typical sexless marriage is made up of 2 generals who have their armies marshalled and ready to battle...except they sit there eyeing each other across the battlefield in an uneasy truce.

In the end, isn't it better to fight that final battle with the intentions that it's the final stand? Wouldn't you rather figure out if you are General Wellington or General Custer? Without doing anything, both armies are losing due to inaction as a result of attrition. If both sides have this stranglehold on the other in an uneasy truce, eventually both sides wither away until there is nothing left. 

I understand the reasons given - kids and finances - which ironically is the exact same mindset taken when it comes to infidelity (in most cases). But are those reasons actually good enough? I don't mean are they important enough. I mean if you are willing to put up with a sexless marriage and sacrifice yourself for the sake of your kids, doesn't the family normally degrade enough in these types of situations to the point that the family that stayed together only provided a marginal benefit vs splitting in the first place?


----------



## happy as a clam (Jan 5, 2014)

Plan 9 from OS said:


> I understand the reasons given - kids and finances - which ironically is the exact same mindset taken when it comes to infidelity (in most cases). But are those reasons actually good enough? I don't mean are they important enough. I mean if you are willing to put up with a sexless marriage and sacrifice yourself for the sake of your kids, *doesn't the family normally degrade enough in these types of situations to the point that the family that stayed together only provided a marginal benefit vs splitting in the first place?*


Excellent observations, Plan.

The answer to your question is: YES. Families DO degrade to the point that staying together only for the kids and finances is an extremely marginal benefit.

I stayed in a sexless marriage for 20 years -- all for the kids and finances. Sheesh, what a terrible mistake. We all paid a hefty price for it.

I finally left, and it was the best thing I ever did for all of us. Sure, we all took a financial hit (two households are more expensive than one, blah blah blah) and it was hard on the kids, but in the end they are so much happier that they no longer have to live with two bitter, angry, seething parents. At times, the tension in the household was so thick you could cut it with a knife. Not fair for any kid to have to live like that.

My ex-husband and I are both in happy relationships now (not sure how HIS sex life is these days , but mine is great!)

I only wish I had left sooner.


----------



## thread the needle (May 4, 2015)

Apparently not. 

Sexless marriage like all things in life is the result of calculations made and a power struggle similar to "s(he) who has the gold makes the rules" yet it's "whomever holds the power gets their way"

I emotionally detached, ridded myself of every shred of codependence in preparation of letting my wife go telling her I would not live without enthusiastic sex. She decided to cut the crap and fix it. I am one of the few HDs that took my power back in combination with a spouse with the desire to stay together and make it work.

Im getting laid one way or another. I like to get laid. I will not NOT get laid. I will pay the price of getting laid whatever it is.

Those HDs that lose the battle n a no win situation are unwilling to divorce or have a spouse that prefers little or no sex over being married or both. Mine didn't. Until that was fully addressed in my situation. I was powerless. 

Whatever the excuses were from my wife were addressed right after I made sure she understood i jump thru her hoops when she jumps thru mine and I already had plenty of turns going first.


----------



## badsanta (Oct 13, 2014)

Plan, 

In my opinion sexless marriages (other than one's with medical issues) are plagued with frustration, guilt, resentment and an inability to forgive one's self for feeling this way. Overtime this likely erodes both partner's self confidence of seeing they can not please each other until they feel like they are in the relationship only for the sake of trying to prevent even more failure and harm to themselves because they fear no one else would ever want them. 

We live in a society where everyone would just rather watch and listen, and few if any actually feel the urge from within to actually PARTICIPATE. ....eventually the lack of participation will catapult these relationships into the spotlight in the form of inhibited social drama, much like someone being evicted from their home because they somehow feel entitled to live there without paying any bills. ...and that creates and event where we as a society just get to sit back and watch and listen as someone else's disaster unfolds, while quietly thinking inside to ourselves that I'll never let it get this bad in my own life, I'll do my best to try and stay.

There was a recent eviction in my brother's neighborhood. A house full of children thrown out of their home. No one helped them, everyone just spoke horrible about them for not leaving the house sooner when they knew things were bad, and now their neighborhood look awful because all their stuff was out on the streets.... but no one in the community ever felt the desire to overcome the awkwardness and get involved to help them.

Regards, 
Badsanta


----------



## UMP (Dec 23, 2014)

thread the needle said:


> Apparently not.
> 
> Sexless marriage like all things in life is the result of calculations made and a power struggle similar to "s(he) who has the gold makes the rules" yet it's "whomever holds the power gets their way"
> 
> ...


I like this way of thinking. Kinda of a "bull by the horns" kind of thing. Way to go!!
I pretty much did the same thing and it also worked.
The strange part is that once the LD spouse gets on board, you can clearly see they are diggin the sex. Why go through this headache to begin with?

It is my opinion that sometimes the LD spouse actually NEEDS this sort of true ultimatum to be attracted to you. It's almost as if the LD has to believe that you really will leave before they give it up in earnest. How f-ed up is that :laugh:


----------



## Anon1111 (May 29, 2013)

I think it's a more of a one sided battle in most cases.

The HD spouse gets driven crazy and the LD spouse just wonders why the HD spouse can never let it go.

The HD spouse from time to time tries to convince him/herself that he/she can really manage without being fulfilled in this way and then eventually boils over.

The LD spouse only sees it as being a problem when the HD spouse loses his/her cool.

So in the HD spouses mind it is a never-ending struggle by in the LD spouse's mind it is more like episodic conflict.

In a way, if the HD spouse can escalate the situation to what you've described and make the LD spouse feel the constant tension, that is a victory, because then the LD spouse can never conveniently ignore the problem.


----------



## Plan 9 from OS (Jul 13, 2012)

Anon1111 said:


> *I think it's a more of a one sided battle in most cases.*
> 
> The HD spouse gets driven crazy and the LD spouse just wonders why the HD spouse can never let it go.
> 
> ...


I think in some cases this is true. In other cases, I think the LD suffers every bit as much as the HD. I think IRL the few that are completely oblivious to the corrosiveness of sexlessness to a marriage are a small minority. On TAM and sites similar to it, it gets amplified. I think most cases of little to no sex is a symptom of an underlying root cause(s), and because of that I believe in the majority of cases (IRL) both spouses feel unhappy and unfulfilled. 

IMHO, sexlessness is the catalyst that can either spur the partners on to fixing the real issues or it will be the straw that breaks the camels back in the marriage ultimately ending. This assumes that both spouses have a healthy amount of self respect to not tolerate bad behavior in a marriage.


----------



## happy as a clam (Jan 5, 2014)

WoundedWarrior has a thread going now that is VERY painful to read. So many triggers for me, and reminds me of all my lame "justifications" for staying in a miserable situation. (How can I give up my lifestyle? Will the kids suffer? Am I too old to start over? Am I willing to give up the "known" for the "unknown"? What if I go BROKE? What if my kids are mad and blame me???) None of that came true, by the way.

ww's thread is *here* for anyone who is interested. (Sorry, hope that's not a thread-jack.)

I now live in a home that is one-fourth the size of the one I lived in when I was married. I gave up the vacation home, the expensive cars, the extended travel, the bank account that was endlessly replenished, the "prestige" of being a "prominent doctor's wife." 

Even though my ex has another sprawling house (he is likely overextended AGAIN), guess what? My kids spend most of their free time from college at my tiny little ranch house in a cute neighborhood. Why? Because it is NOW a HAPPY HOME.

In the end, that's all that really matters. Peace and happiness. It's all most people are REALLY looking for.

Namaste ~


----------



## Anon1111 (May 29, 2013)

Plan 9 from OS said:


> I think IRL the few that are completely oblivious to the corrosiveness of sexlessness to a marriage are a small minority.


I guess what I am saying is the LD spouse sees the corrosiveness as not being about sex, but about the HD spouse him/herself.

It's only a problem in the LD spouse's mind because the HD spouse MAKES it a problem.

So the LD spouse is unaware of the corrosiveness of sexlessness per se. He/she can only see the EFFECT of the sexlessness and mistakes the effect as the CAUSE of the relationship problems.

If the HD spouse can raise the issue of sexlessness to a level where the LD spouse can actually see that sexlessness itself is a problem (not just the HD's reaction to it), then you may be getting somewhere.


----------



## thread the needle (May 4, 2015)

UMP said:


> once the LD spouse gets on board, you can clearly see they are diggin the sex. sometimes the LD spouse actually NEEDS this sort of true ultimatum to be attracted to you. It's almost as if the LD has to believe that you really will leave before they give it up in earnest.


Agreed along with ...

1. Being newly aware of and then working fearlessly and enthusiastically with reactionary drive of your spouse if that is their drive type
2. No self rejection by talking yourself out of making a pass for fear of rejection instead going forward with a pass without hesitation
3. Seeking out and implementing as many reattraction triggers you are able to discover and put into action
4. Reenergizing pursuit on a par with the honeymoon period and sustaining that when possible
5. Never become codependent
6. Addressing both spouses issues at the same time instead of the HD always going first for a lengthy time-frame without results as an LD delay tactic. Call bull$hit on that every time


----------



## Anon1111 (May 29, 2013)

thread the needle said:


> 6. Addressing both spouses issues at the same time instead of the HD always going first for a lengthy time-frame without results as an LD delay tactic. Call bull$hit on that every time


woa, this is huge.


----------



## happy as a clam (Jan 5, 2014)

Anon1111 said:


> woa, this is huge.


Yep, Anon!

Your vision is getting clearer...


----------



## UMP (Dec 23, 2014)

thread the needle said:


> Agreed along with ...
> 
> 1. Being newly aware of and then working fearlessly and enthusiastically with reactionary drive of your spouse if that is their drive type
> 2. No self rejection by talking yourself out of making a pass for fear of rejection instead going forward with a pass without hesitation
> ...


Let me add a #7.

7. Don't be embarrassed or ashamed of your HD sexuality and the "kinks" that go along with it. If you want to do XYZ in bed, do it with unabashed enthusiasm. Chicks dig that sort of sh#t :laugh:


----------



## thread the needle (May 4, 2015)

Anon1111 said:


> The LD spouse only sees it as being a problem when the HD spouse loses his/her cool. So in the HD spouses mind it is a never-ending struggle by *in the LD spouse's mind it is more like episodic conflict.*


:iagree:



Anon1111 said:


> if the HD spouse can escalate the situation to what you've described and make the LD spouse feel the constant tension, that is a victory, because then the LD spouse can never conveniently ignore the problem.


Here is what I did to fix years of that LD crap

1. googled how to fall out of love with your (wife)
2. emotionally detached 
3. prepared myself as much as possible to begin divorce, live alone and move on
4. let her know there are exactly two options fix completely (not partially or by compromise) or divorce
5. let her know about my preparations so the games were over it was all in or all out right now
6. I wanted to fix it but didnt have the patience for any more delays games or bull$hit

It worked

I want to make it very clear I was at a point (on purpose) that either way was fine. It was an ultimatum I was fully prepared to follow thru on with the inner peace I like to operate with


----------



## happy as a clam (Jan 5, 2014)

UMP said:


> Let me add a #7.
> 
> 7. Don't be embarrassed or ashamed of your HD sexuality and the "kinks" that go along with it. *If you want to do XYZ in bed, do it with unabashed enthusiasm.* * Chicks dig that sort of sh#t :laugh:*


Completely agree, @UMP!

My LD ex-H used to do this weird, beta, "pawing at me" thing. He would wimpishly try to seduce me with 1-2 minutes of pawing/groping. THAT was supposed to turn me on? (Never mind the fact that it only happened about twice a year, with NO affection from him otherwise.)

My super-sexy Alpha SO has a whole different approach. On nights where I may be slightly less than enthused (long day at work, stress, household chores, etc.) he doesn't just wimpily give up. He takes my hand, leads me into the bedroom, verbally makes his desire known, and physically "shows" me in no uncertain terms his need and desire for ME. I melt every time.

You're right. Chicks dig unabashed enthusiasm!


----------



## Anon1111 (May 29, 2013)

happy as a clam said:


> Completely agree, @UMP!
> 
> My LD ex-H used to do this weird, beta, "pawing at me" thing. He would wimpishly try to seduce me with 1-2 minutes of pawing/groping. THAT was supposed to turn me on? (Never mind the fact that it only happened about twice a year, with NO affection from him otherwise.)
> 
> ...


I gotta admit though that it's tough to maintain the super-confident attitude when you know there is a greater than 50% chance you will get shot down.

It is very easy to fall into a quasi approach like you described as being weak and pathetic because when there is no response you don't feel as though you've really put yourself out there.


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
I think its not so simple. Some near sexless marriages are very good in other ways. Its not just financial issues that prevent divorce, but real love for and wanting to be with your partner. 

Also, often the HD never gives up hope. They are so unable to comprehend the LD's position, that even after decades they think things will improve. "wow, we had sex twice last week - maybe he/she is finally realizing how good it is"

Then there is the problem that it seems so....wrong... to leave "just because of sex". The combination of "is that all that matters to you", and "why after all these years" feels too awful.


----------



## thread the needle (May 4, 2015)

thread the needle said:


> 2. No self rejection by talking yourself out of making a pass for fear of rejection instead going forward with a pass without hesitation
> 3. Seeking out and implementing as many reattraction triggers you are able to discover and put into action
> 4. Reenergizing pursuit on a par with the honeymoon period and sustaining that when possible





UMP said:


> 7. unabashed enthusiasm





happy as a clam said:


> My LD ex-H used to do this weird, beta, "pawing at me" thing. He would wimpishly try to seduce me with 1-2 minutes of pawing/groping.
> 
> My super-sexy Alpha SO doesn't just wimpily give up. He "shows" me in no uncertain terms his need and desire for ME. I melt every time.


All quotes intertwined sexy confidence and being attractive to the object of your desire, animal magnetism, carnal thoughts on display, etc which Hds lose when their LD chips away. Gotta get your groove back and press on with gusto. Never forget you're hotness even if your LD has issues and bad behavior they are not motivated to resolve unless you motivate them with all manner of voo doo and desire


----------



## happy as a clam (Jan 5, 2014)

richardsharpe said:


> Also, often the HD never gives up hope. They are so unable to comprehend the LD's position, that even after decades they think things will improve.


I totally agree, richard. For TWO DECADES I hoped and prayed my LD spouse would "change." I booked counseling appointments, marriage retreats, sexy get-away weekends, sexy lingerie, porn, couples' massages, sexy text messages, love letters, crying, tantrums (*ugh), long talks, sex therapists. H*ll, I even got Botox!!

I finally gave up hope after 20 years.

We are divorced.


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
there is also not wanting to hurt your spouse. My wife would be utterly devastated if I left (and the rest of our marriage is so good that I don't want to leave anyway). Whats worse is that she wouldn't understand - it would feel like kicking a puppy. It would be an act of betrayal. 

Despite the talks she truly cannot understand that to me sex is more than a fun thing we occasionally do when we happen to have time. She has been making an effort recently and that has helped a lot, but its clear that she still doesn't understand.


----------



## thread the needle (May 4, 2015)

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> I think its not so simple. Some near sexless marriages are very good in other ways. Its not just financial issues that prevent divorce, but real love for and *wanting to be with your partner*.
> 
> Also, often the *HD never gives up hope*. They are so unable to comprehend the LD's position, that even after decades *they think things will improve*. "wow, we had sex twice last week - maybe he/she is finally realizing how good it is"
> ...


Excellent points. I do not suggest my marriage was at a point that you describe or that I felt that way. I was way past that point and it was a deal killer for me. Loyal loving room mates are lovely but not lovers. I want to live my life with a passionate lover not a room mate however lovely and will not settle for less. 

No disrespect, each to his or her own preferences, priorities and values. I got what I want and it was an epic battle. Had I not, I would still be working toward it with zeal

Unlike you, I didnt want to be with her any longer if she remained LD. I did give up hope. Leaving because your spouse does not find meeting your needs important isnt just about sex" In fact that line is the LD line not the HD line. She has effected your own mindset that "its just sex" that is incorrect. Its not just sex. That thinking is the issue. Its way more than that as any HD will tell you


----------



## Plan 9 from OS (Jul 13, 2012)

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> there is also not wanting to hurt your spouse. My wife would be utterly devastated if I left (and the rest of our marriage is so good that I don't want to leave anyway). Whats worse is that she wouldn't understand - it would feel like kicking a puppy. It would be an act of betrayal.
> 
> *Despite the talks she truly cannot understand that to me sex is more than a fun thing we occasionally do when we happen to have time. She has been making an effort recently and that has helped a lot, but its clear that she still doesn't understand.*


I don't understand why your wife or any LD spouse that withholds sex regularly (and fully healthy) cannot understand why sex is important to the HD. Even if she doesn't get it, why not simply do it because it's something the HD spouse enjoys doing? I bet in the majority of cases, the LD spouse would actually have a good time if he/she would be open minded and participate in lovemaking. 

I fail to grasp why an LD spouse acts as if their HD partner is wearing a sandpaper condom or storing boiling acid inside their vag...


----------



## thread the needle (May 4, 2015)

richardsharpe said:


> there is also not wanting to hurt your spouse. My wife would be utterly devastated if I left (and the rest of our marriage is so good that I don't want to leave anyway). Whats worse is that she wouldn't understand - it would feel like kicking a puppy. It would be an act of betrayal.
> 
> Despite the talks she truly cannot understand that to me sex is more than a fun thing we occasionally do when we happen to have time. She has been making an effort recently and that has helped a lot, but its clear that she still doesn't understand.


I got to a point that I didn't care if she understood or not or if it hurt or not. If my wife was not the one for me because she was not able to be the type of spouse I wanted and expected then I was prepared to move on without further investment of energy or time beating a dead "confused" broken horse. 

I don't dispute other situations and feelings are different. I had no sympathy left for someone I was miserable with due to them thinking it was completely ok to play the "I don't get it" card over and over. I could do it it but I was not interested in that.


----------



## farsidejunky (Mar 19, 2014)

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> I think its not so simple. Some near sexless marriages are very good in other ways. Its not just financial issues that prevent divorce, but real love for and wanting to be with your partner.
> 
> Also, often the HD never gives up hope. They are so unable to comprehend the LD's position, that even after decades they think things will improve. "wow, we had sex twice last week - maybe he/she is finally realizing how good it is"
> ...


This line of thinking is what muddies the waters. 

It is only as complicated as the decision maker makes it.


----------



## happy as a clam (Jan 5, 2014)

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> *there is also not wanting to hurt your spouse. My wife would be utterly devastated if I left...*


Same here, richard. My spouse *was *UTTERLY DEVASTATED when I left. Sorry, but I gave him 20 years to remedy the situation.

I finally gave in to the age-old, millions of years, BASIC fight-or-flight, *save yourself* INSTINCT. Darwinian. As old as time.

Save myself, or go down with the sinking ship.

(As Charles Darwin himself stated clearly, the STRONGEST don't necessarily survive. THOSE WHO ARE ABLE TO ADAPT TO CHANGE are the ones who survive.)

I appreciate that you have made peace with your situation. Many of us cannot do the same.


----------



## thread the needle (May 4, 2015)

Plan 9 from OS said:


> I bet in the majority of cases, the LD spouse would actually have a good time if he/she would be open minded and participate in lovemaking


Reactionary desire can not be discounted in these situations and must be thoroughly explored. At times, that is all it is.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Plan 9 from OS said:


> I don't understand why your wife or any LD spouse that withholds sex regularly (and fully healthy) cannot understand why sex is important to the HD. * Even if she doesn't get it, why not simply do it because it's something the HD spouse enjoys doing?* I bet in the majority of cases, the LD spouse would actually have a good time if he/she would be open minded and participate in lovemaking.
> 
> I fail to grasp why an LD spouse acts as if their HD partner is wearing a sandpaper condom or storing boiling acid inside their vag...


That's the thing.......

If my wife said it gave her great pleasure to see me hop around on one foot for 15 minutes a day, I'd be happy to do it. I'd be happy to give her a massage every night although I wouldn't enjoy it.

Sex seems to be considered different for some reason (it's *her* body!). Well, it's my body jumping on one foot and my hands getting tired.


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
Unfortunately the direct approach simply doesn't work with a LD partner. I've tried. The response is that "I'm sorry, but I'm tired / feeling poorly / too busy / didn't sleep / whatever. "

As a LD poster put is so well: "the HD partner runs round and round the maze looking for sex but there is no sex there". The LD partner simply doesn't want sex, no matter what the HD does. 

They may be coerced into providing sex on the threat of divorce, but for many HDs that isn't the goal. The goal is to be desired and that simply won't happen.



happy as a clam said:


> Completely agree, @UMP!
> 
> My LD ex-H used to do this weird, beta, "pawing at me" thing. He would wimpishly try to seduce me with 1-2 minutes of pawing/groping. THAT was supposed to turn me on? (Never mind the fact that it only happened about twice a year, with NO affection from him otherwise.)
> 
> ...


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
Not being LD, its difficult for me to understand, I'm never in a state where I actively do not want to have sex with my wife.

The only model I can think of is the following: Imagine your wife was under some sort of curse that made her male for 99% of the time and female for 1%. She is still the person you love, but most of the time she is in the wrong gender body. Would you be willing to have sex with her when she was male because you loved her and it was important to her? The curse is not her fault, and she (in male or female form) still desire you. 






Buddy400 said:


> That's the thing.......
> 
> If my wife said it gave her great pleasure to see me hop around on one foot for 15 minutes a day, I'd be happy to do it. I'd be happy to give her a massage every night although I wouldn't enjoy it.
> 
> Sex seems to be considered different for some reason (it's *her* body!). Well, it's my body jumping on one foot and my hands getting tired.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Plan,
In theory I agree with this. In practice, it's very difficult for folks who are unskilled at conflict and/or (non physical) combat to go down this path. 

They not only lack a plan, they don't know how to create such a plan. 

For example, consider the difference between the approaches below. And ask yourself how likely each is to succeed. 

1. I didn't sign up for a sexless marriage. Either we start having sex at least twice a week or I'm filing. 

2. I'm starting to think you don't love me the way a wife loves a husband. Maybe that's fixable, maybe it isn't. The sexual part of the marriage is broken. We need to work on that together. Maybe it's what I'm doing - I hope so - because that's fixable. 

Maybe you're simply not attracted to me as a person. That unfortunately is not fixable. 

If you don't love me enough to at least tell me the truth I seriously doubt this will ever get resolved. 

----------
The reason I believe this is so difficult is that it takes a high EQ to accurately distinguish between things that are 'true', and things that are 'TRUE'. 

Lower case true stuff - is toxic. These are hoops that have nothing to do with desire. 

Upper case TRUE stuff is absolutely necessary in order to create desire. 

Can an 'average' man differentiate between these two things? I imagine that depends on whether his wife is mostly working in good faith with him. 







Plan 9 from OS said:


> Reading here and other places, it seems like your typical sexless marriage is made up of 2 generals who have their armies marshalled and ready to battle...except they sit there eyeing each other across the battlefield in an uneasy truce.
> 
> In the end, isn't it better to fight that final battle with the intentions that it's the final stand? Wouldn't you rather figure out if you are General Wellington or General Custer? Without doing anything, both armies are losing due to inaction as a result of attrition. If both sides have this stranglehold on the other in an uneasy truce, eventually both sides wither away until there is nothing left.
> 
> I understand the reasons given - kids and finances - which ironically is the exact same mindset taken when it comes to infidelity (in most cases). But are those reasons actually good enough? I don't mean are they important enough. I mean if you are willing to put up with a sexless marriage and sacrifice yourself for the sake of your kids, doesn't the family normally degrade enough in these types of situations to the point that the family that stayed together only provided a marginal benefit vs splitting in the first place?


----------



## thread the needle (May 4, 2015)

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> Unfortunately the direct approach simply doesn't work with a LD partner. I've tried. The response is that "I'm sorry, but I'm tired / feeling poorly / too busy / didn't sleep / whatever. "
> 
> As a LD poster put is so well: "the HD partner runs round and round the maze looking for sex but there is no sex there". The LD partner simply doesn't want sex, no matter what the HD does.
> ...


A few posts ago you said "its not that simple" and then use "simply" in the post above twice. 

Each of these situations have similarities and differences. 

Being direct with my LD wife worked better than anything else. For you to say "being direct simply doesn't work" is nonsense. I take you at your word that it doesn't work with your wife but that isn't conclusive to others since it worked with mine better than anything else during the time we were working thru resolving it.

As for "being desired" "under coercion and threat" misses the point and leaves out the intermediate steps. 

An explanation that divorce will result if the sex issue does not get fixed motivates the LD spouse to examine how much effort to put into overcoming it. My wife came to the conclusion that she had better finally start 

1. communicating honestly and directly what her issues were (she did and still does now)
2. figure out if it could be worked out and decide if she wanted to bother (she did)
3. not let things go so long that we get to the brink before expressing her issues (she does)
4. embrace my progress and insist on her progress without everything needing to be perfected on either as a gesture of goodwill before everything was perfect (act "as if") 

Only when she was motivated to communicate and explore and solve the issue that would result in the end of our marriage did we make the breakthroughs that were holding her back from desire.

Now that our marriage is fixed, she has desire. Calling that coerced sex is ridiculous


----------



## arbitrator (Feb 13, 2012)

*Loving sex only makes a bonafide marriage even better, not worse! 

Whenever the act of sex suddenly disappears from the marriage radar, then control of the other marital partner becomes all too prevalent. Either that or, God forbid, an outright commission of covert infidelity!*
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## happy as a clam (Jan 5, 2014)

MEM11363 said:


> Maybe you're simply not attracted to me as a person. *That unfortunately is not fixable. *
> 
> If you don't love me enough to at least tell me the truth I seriously doubt this will ever get resolved.


Couldn't agree more. If you're NOT ATTRACTED TO EACH OTHER remotely in the least, all the counseling, duty sex, role-playing isn't going to change a d*mn thing.

If my ex-husband would have only been honest with me (and himself) and given up his ego trip, we would have saved BOTH ourselves a h*ll of a lot of heartache. And money.


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
You are right, I should not have said "simply doesn't work", its just my frustration showing.

Better is to say that for some LD people the direct approach doesn't work and that as far as I can tell, form them no approach will work. For those LDs, you may be able to get them them to agree to sex, but not to want sex. 

With other LDs you may be able to get them to enjoy and want sex. 


In my case, my wife usually doesn't want sex - the desire simply isn't there. She will come up with endless reasons - but I think they are attempts to convince herself when she really doesn't understand. 









thread the needle said:


> A few posts ago you said "its not that simple" and then use "simply" in the post above twice.
> 
> Each of these situations have similarities and differences.
> 
> ...


----------



## Fozzy (Jul 20, 2013)

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> Not being LD, its difficult for me to understand, I'm never in a state where I actively do not want to have sex with my wife.
> 
> The only model I can think of is the following: Imagine your wife was under some sort of curse that made her male for 99% of the time and female for 1%. She is still the person you love, but most of the time she is in the wrong gender body. Would you be willing to have sex with her when she was male because you loved her and it was important to her? The curse is not her fault, and she (in male or female form) still desire you.


OOO, like in Ladyhawke!


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Plan,

This is where I see it different. I absolutely believe that there are several types of LD spouses. 

1. LD with strong responsive desire - These folks have good sex lives when:
- Their partners are skilled at getting them turned on
- The overall marriage is strong enough for them to WANT to have sex, despite feeling no desire until they begin to play

2. LD with a weak responsive desire - Sex often feels icky to these folks. It's why they avoid it. Many of these folks develop a sexual aversion. This is completely different than being LD. For these folks, the idea of sex causes them to feel anxiety. 

I absolutely don't want to demonize these folks. They are wired differently than we are. 

There was a 'puppy kicking' analogy used in an earlier post. And I believe that analogy was half true. The true part pertains to the power dynamic. If that marriage ended, the H would quickly and easily repartner. His new spouse would think she won the lottery. His current wife would almost certainly be alone because she is: complicated, has a narrow comfort zone in many areas of life, is accustomed to a very high quality partner and doesn't especially like sex. So she is legitimately frightened by the prospect of divorce. That said, this is an intelligent and successful career woman. She's skilled at getting her needs (physical, emotional, financial) met. 

She fully understands how important sex is to her H. 

In situations like that, there is a strategy which tends to produce an overall optimal outcome, but it's not for the faint of heart. 






Plan 9 from OS said:


> I don't understand why your wife or any LD spouse that withholds sex regularly (and fully healthy) cannot understand why sex is important to the HD. Even if she doesn't get it, why not simply do it because it's something the HD spouse enjoys doing? I bet in the majority of cases, the LD spouse would actually have a good time if he/she would be open minded and participate in lovemaking.
> 
> I fail to grasp why an LD spouse acts as if their HD partner is wearing a sandpaper condom or storing boiling acid inside their vag...


----------



## Plan 9 from OS (Jul 13, 2012)

MEM11363 said:


> Plan,
> 
> This is where I see it different. I absolutely believe that there are several types of LD spouses.
> 
> ...


I agree that there are different types of LD people - several in fact. I think most of them are actually LD due to circumstances and could actually feel active desire. I also think others do have responsive desire, and if approached correctly they would be willing to have a healthy sex life. In these 2 cases, it can be a combination of underlying causes that result in reduced libido and/or a failure on the part of the HD to diagnose what issues are preventing him/her from having a healthy sex life with a spouse. 

Even if the person is objectively LD and simply rarely gets those urges either actively or responsively, where does it kill them to do their best to at least give the HD a passable sex life? I can appreciate your thoughts on this as it relates to some people simply not having sex as a thought.

In the end though, it is my opinion that a person who is LD by nature, has no health, marital or family problems that would explain low libido, and is generally happy with the marriage is self absorbed. One must conclude that a valid criticism of a spouse who fits this description is self centered and/or simply does not love his/her HD spouse. You and others have stated it earlier. If the love/attraction is not there, fess up now and save everyone a lot of heartache.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Thread,

The reasons you succeeded are:
1. Overall you're a good partner and T2 wanted to remain married
2. You embrace the TRUTH even when it's painful. 
3. You were able to identify all the little 'truths' she threw at you along the way. And challenged them successfully.
4. You were comfortable playing the 'I matter too' card which looks like this: You don't get to wait until I've created the 'mythical' perfect environment to have sex with me. Because even if I could create that momentarily, it's not sustainable. 

The reason this is absolutely critical to success is simple. Folks with responsive desire almost always have to consciously make the choice to relax and let nature take its course. 

When sex has become infrequent, it feels weird and not in a good way, each time they do it. 

The longer they put it off, the more entitled they feel to not make the effort. And the longer they do that, the more they perceive you in a non sexual way. Both those things are destructive. 

If you accept that the terms and conditions for having sex are solely determined by the LD spouse, game over. Because at that point you begin to walk on eggshells. And there's nothing more unsexy than a fearful partner. 





thread the needle said:


> A few posts ago you said "its not that simple" and then use "simply" in the post above twice.
> 
> Each of these situations have similarities and differences.
> 
> ...


----------



## Anon1111 (May 29, 2013)

MEM11363 said:


> You don't get to wait until I've created the 'mythical' perfect environment to have sex with me. Because even if I could create that momentarily, it's not sustainable.


in my experience, this is where things always break down.

anybody who has been in this situation knows that the LD spouse can always come up with a reason why it's your fault he/she's not interested.


----------



## moco82 (Jul 16, 2012)

Plan 9 from OS said:


> doesn't the family normally degrade


Perhaps normally, in the statistical sense. That leaves plenty of couples beyond the second or third standard deviation who get along well and for whom the damage from split households outweighs the moderate degradation.

It's been discussed in multiple threads before, and generally the conclusion has been that there is no universal prescription and that people who can pull off a civic and friendly roommate-type arrangement should not be argued out of attempting to do so.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Plan,

We certainly agree on this: Folks who say their relationship is perfect other than being sexless are completely wrong. 

Because it's parasitic to accept all the time, effort and emotional energy from an HD partner when you have no intention of reciprocating. 

There was a guy who was kind and weak. He put a huge amount of effort into getting a tiny amount of sex until one day he had an epiphany. His wife had promised and then shot him down for the last time. 

This was a woman who wielded two completely contradictory value systems at once:
1. I expect to be treated like I'm special at all times because I'm the woman
2. How dare you have any expectations of me just because we're in this patriarchal system of oppression called marriage

So this is what he did. He said: We are now 100% equal going forward. I have no interest in you doing anything you don't want to do. And I need you to understand I'm no longer willing to do anything I don't want to do. 

The date nights, love notes, flowers, long unreciprocated back rubs and compliments all stopped. He was friendly and respectful but that was all. 

For a short while she ignored him, thinking he lacked resolve. Then she began to complain. Loudly. 

He was firm: We are equals. I will not accept anything other than a mutually satisfying marriage. When you're ready for that, let me know. 

When they socialized she attempted to create the impression that they were happily married. She would try to get in and stay in his personal space. He wouldn't allow it. He privately told her: You don't get to act differently in public than you do in private. 

He also told her that when asked how he was doing he was going to tell people the truth: I'm unhappy. I'm in a sexless and mostly loveless marriage. And I'm not ok with that. He didn't trash his wife - he limited his comments to the marriage being very bad. 

After a full year his wife approached him. She didn't like the new regime. She hinted at divorce. He said he was fine with that outcome. She then said for the first time in their marriage: she was sorry for treating him so badly and wanted to fix their marriage. He laid out terms, they were simple. And yes they included sex at least once a week and ideally twice a week. And that included a requirement that she initiate at least once a week. 

And he said: When THAT starts, we begin to return to the old pattern with a few exceptions. One of them is this. When we fight and you are in the wrong, you apologize. If you still believe that being female exempts you from treating me decently, this won't work. 

And they rebalanced the marriage. 




Plan 9 from OS said:


> I agree that there are different types of LD people - several in fact. I think most of them are actually LD due to circumstances and could actually feel active desire. I also think others do have responsive desire, and if approached correctly they would be willing to have a healthy sex life. In these 2 cases, it can be a combination of underlying causes that result in reduced libido and/or a failure on the part of the HD to diagnose what issues are preventing him/her from having a healthy sex life with a spouse.
> 
> Even if the person is objectively LD and simply rarely gets those urges either actively or responsively, where does it kill them to do their best to at least give the HD a passable sex life? I can appreciate your thoughts on this as it relates to some people simply not having sex as a thought.
> 
> In the end though, it is my opinion that a person who is LD by nature, has no health, marital or family problems that would explain low libido, and is generally happy with the marriage is self absorbed. One must conclude that a valid criticism of a spouse who fits this description is self centered and/or simply does not love his/her HD spouse. You and others have stated it earlier. If the love/attraction is not there, fess up now and save everyone a lot of heartache.


----------



## ocotillo (Oct 17, 2011)

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> You are right, I should not have said "simply doesn't work", its just my frustration showing.


Don't feel bad. 

"Simple" (The adjective) means easily understood; without difficulty; straightforward; uncomplicated, etc.

"Simply" (The adverb) means plainly, unambiguously, directly, without contradiction, etc.

Consequently, there is zero contradiction between these two sentences:

"Casanova himself would fall on his face because my wife *simply* does not want sex" 

"Effectively dealing with my LD wife is not as *simple* as becoming a Casanova."


----------



## Cara (Aug 15, 2010)

Plan 9 from OS said:


> Reading here and other places, it seems like your typical sexless marriage is made up of 2 generals who have their armies marshalled and ready to battle...except they sit there eyeing each other across the battlefield in an uneasy truce.
> 
> In the end, isn't it better to fight that final battle with the intentions that it's the final stand? Wouldn't you rather figure out if you are General Wellington or General Custer? Without doing anything, both armies are losing due to inaction as a result of attrition. If both sides have this stranglehold on the other in an uneasy truce, eventually both sides wither away until there is nothing left.
> 
> I understand the reasons given - kids and finances - which ironically is the exact same mindset taken when it comes to infidelity (in most cases). But are those reasons actually good enough? I don't mean are they important enough. I mean if you are willing to put up with a sexless marriage and sacrifice yourself for the sake of your kids, doesn't the family normally degrade enough in these types of situations to the point that the family that stayed together only provided a marginal benefit vs splitting in the first place?


Here is my perspective on this illogical situation. My marriage has been sexless for the better part of a year, but was well on it's way to sexless for the past 5 years. Personally, I can put up with pretty much anything except abuse to give my kids a stable, two-parent home and I believe parents have the obligation to make this sacrifice for their children. I plan to divorce my husband once my youngest is off to college in 12 years, assuming of course that a miracle doesn't occur and he becomes the man I need him to be. However, I am in school now and anticipate he will leave me as soon as I graduate in two years. 

I believe that it is wholly possible to provide a safe, loving home for your kids within a sexless marriage. There is no seething resentment or anger in our relationship, as far as I can tell. There is much loneliness on my HD end and tend to I assume my husband is sleeping with women when he travels for work (he has cheated once that I know about). We are in fact good friends and enjoy each other's company. As for the money, I couldn't care less besides providing for the basics and a little extra once in a while. My husband likes the finer things in life and is eagerly awaiting the day I start bringing in money (I'm a SAHM/student). Now that I consider it, maybe he will wait to leave until I am firmly employed in my career so he won't have to pay any spousal support.

Maybe I feel this way because I have had only been in this situation for 5 years, unlike many here. My loneliness hasn't been something I can't deal with and intentionally I haven't allowed myself into any situations I think could tempt me to cheat. 

We only married because we had a kid and another on the way. He was neglectful and very Beta once we married, which caused my attraction to wane early on. Then there were several events that caused me to lose nearly all respect for him and actually become repulsed by his touch to the point where I cry and feel nauseous whenever we have had sex the past couple years, but I don't let him know I cry. I "ate" my HD feelings (since, as a mom, I can't stand the guilt of smoking and having my kids know) and have gained weight. I know this must make him less attracted to me, which I suspect is part of the motivation to not lose any weight. Kind of twisted, I know.

The truth is, I think about sex many times each day and fantasize about the day I can actually have sex again again. I have a feeling like I'm always a bit hungry, and nothing I eat or "do" can fill that empty space inside. I completely get the men I have read on TAM and elsewhere who A/B their wives and demand they either start to enthusiastically have sex or let their husband go so he can have his needs met. I just can't pull that trigger because I owe the kids the right to live with their dad, who is their favorite person in the world. I know if I left and got what I need elsewhere, their relationship would suffer. It is a price I cannot bear.


----------



## Cara (Aug 15, 2010)

Many times I have heard the phrase "quiet desperation" to describe the sexless marriage, and I think it is a perfect fit.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Cara,

If you don't mind sharing, what is it that your H did that caused you to have a sexual aversion to him? 






Cara said:


> Many times I have heard the phrase "quiet desperation" to describe the sexless marriage, and I think it is a perfect fit.


----------



## Cara (Aug 15, 2010)

MEM11363 said:


> Cara,
> 
> If you don't mind sharing, what is it that your H did that caused you to have a sexual aversion to him?


A few of them:
He did not defend or support me when his family was disrespectful toward me for the first couple years of our relationship. (To be fair, I had 1.5 kids out of wedlock with their wittle-boy, so I totally see their point, but a man is kind of useless in a woman's eyes if she can't count on him to have her back.)

After my 6 year old was born he would aggressively grope me while I was asleep but only paw at me weakly when I was awake. It was scary to wake up to him doing these things to my body, which was still healing from having a C-section.

I bought countless relationship help books and presented him with strategies to help our marriage. I eventually found MMSL, which seemed like the answer (it still is for me). He agreed we need to change how we behave in our marriage to make it a healthy one, but stopped within a week of making any change. Every. Single. Time. Eventually I gave up on him and stopped giving him what he needs since the resentment of living on a one-way street was too much for me to take.

2.5 years ago he cheated. I had no clue but he confessed to ease his guilt. He said he couldn't live with it. Then, when I hadn't "gotten over it" in a little over a week he became angry whenever I brought it up or asked him about it. He never gave me the same story twice (which is why I kept bringing it up and wanting to have him retell the story) and I thought if I was ever going to get past it I wanted to know what really happened so we could figure out how we could prevent it form happening again. I quickly realized I would never get the real story and if I wanted to remain married I had to let it go and accept that I could never trust him anymore. 

I think part of the reason I am so viscerally unattracted to him is that I know there is no way of my knowing just what diseases he may bring into our bed or if one day some woman will ring our doorbell and say she is having his baby or a man will send me a letter to let me know my husband is cheating with his wife. 

I think that's enough, though there is more.:|


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Cara,

More than enough. I wouldn't sleep with a partner who did that either. 





Cara said:


> A few of them:
> He did not defend or support me when his family was disrespectful toward me for the first couple years of our relationship. (To be fair, I had 1.5 kids out of wedlock with their wittle-boy, so I totally see their point, but a man is kind of useless in a woman's eyes if she can't count on him to have her back.)
> 
> After my 6 year old was born he would aggressively grope me while I was asleep but only paw at me weakly when I was awake. It was scary to wake up to him doing these things to my body, which was still healing from having a C-section.
> ...


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
one problem with these threads is the almost exclusively have posts by either HD people or conditionally LD people who explain why they are LD - usually very valid reasons.

What is missing are the natural LD people who just don't want sex or who want very little, and who can think of nothing that will change that. Every once in a while they post (the "running around the maze looking for sex" was from one), but its rare. i wish they would post more, but they tend to become targets of the frustration of all the HDs.

My wife is at least honest. She makes it clear that there is nothing I could do that would make her more interested in sex. There are always reasons why she isn't interested at some particular time, but she doesn't present them as my "fault" or anything I can change.

Unlike some of the people here, we are no longer in a no-sex situation. We do have sex almost every week (used to be eery couple of months). Its a limited range of activities but at least there is something. I think it is as far as she can be pushed without feeling like she is trading sex just to keep me from leaving.


----------



## WandaJ (Aug 5, 2014)

Plan 9 from OS said:


> I mean if you are willing to put up with a sexless marriage and sacrifice yourself for the sake of your kids, *doesn't the family normally degrade enough in these types of situations to the point that the family that stayed together only provided a marginal benefit vs splitting in the first place?*


Wasn't this original idea behind creating family - to ensure that offsprings are taken care of?

All the love, sexual satisfaction, compatibility are rather new ideas, one of the "problems" of the first world.


----------



## Plan 9 from OS (Jul 13, 2012)

WandaJ said:


> Wasn't this original idea behind creating family - to ensure that offsprings are taken care of?
> 
> All the love, sexual satisfaction, compatibility are rather new ideas, one of the "problems" of the first world.


Honestly I'd say that's debatable. I think the primary purpose of the family was a means of survival. Mom and dad makes an investment in having kids with the expectation that the kids work for the family as contributors do the welfare of the group and then later the adult children take care of the parents in their old age. Of course, children could also be used as a means to unifying 2 families thru an arranged marriage. Bottom line, for much of our history children were useful assets for the betterment/survival of the family - even if it means selling one or more children as slaves in order to feed the rest of the group.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

You've achieved a tolerable compromise. 

That's good. 

Hopefully R2 feels good about making you happy. I know that's what drives most of M2's sexual activity. 





richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> one problem with these threads is the almost exclusively have posts by either HD people or conditionally LD people who explain why they are LD - usually very valid reasons.
> 
> What is missing are the natural LD people who just don't want sex or who want very little, and who can think of nothing that will change that. Every once in a while they post (the "running around the maze looking for sex" was from one), but its rare. i wish they would post more, but they tend to become targets of the frustration of all the HDs.
> ...


----------



## farsidejunky (Mar 19, 2014)

Bugged said:


> I won't comment other posts as this thread is so one-sided that it would be pointless...I will comment on this because I think it's an example of the old adagio that all non sexual intimacy is supposed to be something that only the LD partner wants...it's just a way to reinforce the idea that the LD partner is just a stupid/selfish/self centered jerk who takes a lot and doen't give the *one *single thing that the HD partner wants in return (sex), and this is not true in most cases in IMO.
> :nerd:


Bugged, in fairness you are right that most are not this way.

However, this specific instance was an example of selfishness. It was handled was perfectly.

I think there is a pretty clear distinction between the two in most instances, this one included.

To shame it because the stereotype happened to be true seems off, don't you think?


----------



## woundedwarrior (Dec 9, 2011)

happy as a clam said:


> WoundedWarrior has a thread going now that is VERY painful to read. So many triggers for me, and reminds me of all my lame "justifications" for staying in a miserable situation. (How can I give up my lifestyle? Will the kids suffer? Am I too old to start over? Am I willing to give up the "known" for the "unknown"? What if I go BROKE? What if my kids are mad and blame me???) None of that came true, by the way.
> 
> ww's thread is *here* for anyone who is interested. (Sorry, hope that's not a thread-jack.)
> 
> ...


I deleted that thread because it was painful to write and pointless to read. There was no positive influence in there to help anyone so it shouldn't have been written in the first place. Sometimes I post my feelings, when it should just stay in my head????

HAPPYASACLAM, I am very happy for you


----------



## WandaJ (Aug 5, 2014)

woundedwarrior said:


> I deleted that thread because it was painful to write and pointless to read. There was no positive influence in there to help anyone so it shouldn't have been written in the first place. Sometimes I post my feelings, when it should just stay in my head????
> 
> HAPPYASACLAM, I am very happy for you


Youneed to stop deleting your threads. It was VERY helpful to those who considered going your way and saw how much pain and hopelessness this brought on you. Despite you saying otherwise.


----------



## Satya (Jun 22, 2012)

You can't "control":
- What your kids think (or will think) of you.
- What your spouse thinks of you.
- What your boss thinks of you.
- What strangers on the street think of you.

But you can control what YOU think of you. You can control what you do or don't do in a situation. 

I understand a sexless marriage due to lack of respect (whatever the source is that brings about the lack of respect... there can be many). What I do not understand is why a person that has a basic need for sexual intimacy and fulfillment will willingly choose to remain with someone who will rarely, if ever, meet that need. Just like I would not understand why a LD would choose to stay with a HD, who is most certainly adding pressure to the relationship by having too many (frequent) "needs." 

It's OK to acknowledge that you can have an otherwise good relationship... you can be great parents, hard workers, good people, great roommates, have amazingly good fun together, etc. But I could have all of that from a really good friend. I want more from my partner and someone who is unable to meet my personal needs just isn't going to cut it for me.


----------



## happy as a clam (Jan 5, 2014)

WandaJ said:


> Youneed to stop deleting your threads. It was VERY helpful to those who considered going your way and saw how much pain and hopelessness this brought on you. Despite you saying otherwise.


:iagree:

ww, I thought the thread was extremely beneficial for those who are in the same situation, perhaps trying to see the issue from all angles.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## woundedwarrior (Dec 9, 2011)

WandaJ said:


> Youneed to stop deleting your threads. It was VERY helpful to those who considered going your way and saw how much pain and hopelessness this brought on you. Despite you saying otherwise.


Sorry, I don't think "doom & gloom" posts belong on here, it should be about encouragement and who else would ever consider going this way, I'm one of the only ones that foolish? I really didn't see how that would help anyone?
I do have a bad habit of deleting threads, I apologize for that, I need to think before I write.
I won't delete any more threads, but I'll be more constructive too.


----------



## Satya (Jun 22, 2012)

You can probably ask if the mods will (or have the capability to) reinstate your post.


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
She is sometimes sexually attracted to me, just not very strongly or often.

The point of being married is all the rest of life. Sex is important, but it's not the only thing. 




Personal said:


> Is your wife sexually attracted to you at all?
> 
> If she doesn't want sex with you and or isn't sexually attracted to you, what is the point of continuing to be her husband?


----------



## 3kgtmitsu (Jul 28, 2012)

Pretty simple if you ask me..

If you are continuously not getting your part of the bargain in a relationship..then step up and make it very clear that there are consequences..and be willing to follow through..dont become a doormatt..letting anothee person constantly get away with bad behavior with no consequences is just enabling them.

People want sex..and there should be no expectation that you are going to stick around if your not getting it. Unless its medical/depression etc its unexcusable. life is too short to waste time.


----------



## WandaJ (Aug 5, 2014)

woundedwarrior said:


> Sorry, I don't think "doom & gloom" posts belong on here, it should be about encouragement and who else would ever consider going this way, I'm one of the only ones that foolish? I really didn't see how that would help anyone?
> I do have a bad habit of deleting threads, I apologize for that, I need to think before I write.
> I won't delete any more threads, but I'll be more constructive too.


This site is not for rainbow and unicorns. everybody comes here wiht the baggage. Every thread and subject, and emotions showing in them are important to someone reading them. Not to everybody, but there is always those few who find themselves in them, and just the fact that someone shares their problems, is very important. And your threads are stirring a lot of emotions for people here, because there are many in similar situations.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> She is sometimes sexually attracted to me, just not very strongly or often.
> 
> The point of being married is all the rest of life. Sex is important, but it's not the only thing.


Let's explore some things, man.

Do you share everything you have with your partner? And somehow, don't get everything they have to offer back?

Do you "chase" them around looking for sex all the time?

Are you fit, healthy, attractive, confident, a bit aloof, a bit ****y?

Do you know what turns your wife on about other guys -- past boyfriends, movie stars, whatever?

Do you know her fantasies, or does she say she doesn't have any?

Do you admit when you're attracted to other women? Or do you hide it?


----------



## happy as a clam (Jan 5, 2014)

richardsharpe said:


> *The point of being married is all the rest of life. *Sex is important, but it's not the only thing.


 @richardsharpe... I always appreciate your very thoughtful posts. But I have to beg to differ on the bolded comment above.

Marriage IS a sexual union. And theoretically, it is the ONLY sex you will get once you say your vows and sign on the dotted line. Yes, you are correct, marriage is SO much more than sex (forging a new life, kids, travel, sharing your lives, a partner who has your back, etc.) but at its core, sex is the MAJOR thing that differentiates your spouse from all other relationships.

I tried to convince myself that living with a lukewarm partner when life in all other areas was pretty darn good, was enough. Sadly it wasn't. Marriage requires that "thing" that is unavailable in any other relationship.

Since divorcing and finding a partner who fills my needs in ALL ways, but especially sexually and intimacy-wise, I finally see what the marriage "total package" is supposed to be.

Keep in mind, this purely my opinion. But for 20 years I sadly convinced myself that since I "almost had it all, why rock the boat?" Now that I really have it all, it has cleared my distorted myopia.

Bottom line... It is up to each individual to determine their own priorities and, I suppose, their own definition of marriage. I only know that my previous definition was sorely lacking for me as an individual.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## woundedwarrior (Dec 9, 2011)

To any of the moderators, if you could possibly resuscitate my previous thread, that was deleted a few hours a go, that would be great. I thought it was pointless to most, but apparently I was wrong. Thanks.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Bugged,

I'm summarizing another man's thread. It's an accurate summary. The fact that you don't like it, doesn't make it untrue.

And I didn't suggest it represents the 'average'. 

If you go read the threads written by LD posters here, you'll find I have made an effort to make TAM a friendlier place for them. 

I shared this guys story because there is a dynamic that can creep into an HD/LD marriage whereby the spouse both gradually increase the virtual 'price' of sex. In that model, a tipping point is slowly reached. At the tipping point, the HD becomes so desperate that they agree to ANY price for sex. 

But really in a closed system where I'm trading mostly non monetary goods for sex, is it accurate to say the price of sex has sky rocketed? Or is it more accurate to say that the value/price of all the things I'm trading to get sex, has crashed? 

That's basically what happened in the story I described. 



QUOTE=Bugged;13262938]I won't comment other posts as this thread is so one-sided that it would be pointless...I will comment on this because I think it's an example of the old adagio that all non sexual intimacy is supposed to be something that only the LD partner wants...it's just a way to reinforce the idea that the LD partner is just a stupid/selfish/self centered jerk who takes a lot and doen't give the *one *single thing that the HD partner wants in return (sex), and this is not true in most cases in IMO.
:nerd:[/QUOTE]


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

He didn't only care about sex.

He allowed his wife to use sex to manipulate him. She demanded more and more for less and less until - in the year before he rebalanced the marriage: 

He jumped through non stop hoops to have sex 4 times. 

If you ask him, he'd say: I'm not THAT stupid. What really happened was she implied, suggested or promised to connect many more than 4 times, but then would come up with some excuse or start a fight.

BTW: This is a couple who went from 4/year to 70-80 times a year and an overall much happier marriage. 

And all of that was at least 50% on him. He was weak and she was insecure enough to use that weaknesses to try and get non stop ego validation from him. 





Bugged said:


> That stereotype can never be true...what married person only cares about sex? I wonder if an HD husband had a wife that did not let him touch her or get close unless they were having sex...would he be ok with it?
> Again I think it's the old adagio that is used merely to undeline how selfish/stupid(they don't get it-LD Crap)/self-centered/self absorbed LD spouses are...whatever


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

My wife and I have been very happily married for over 25 years. We're very much in love, respect each other immensely, have common interests, co-parent very well, rarely argue, etc. Neither of us is particularly HD. With young kids, we'd find ourselves not doing it for a month at a time. 

But, the last 2 or 3 years we've really stepped up the sex and the marriage has gone from excellent to extraordinary.

The more sex we had the more we both wanted. The less we had, the less we wanted. We're both a lot happier with more.


----------



## Anon1111 (May 29, 2013)

Buddy400 said:


> My wife and I have been very happily married for over 25 years. We're very much in love, respect each other immensely, have common interests, co-parent very well, rarely argue, etc. Neither of us is particularly HD. With young kids, we'd find ourselves not doing it for a month at a time.
> 
> But, the last 2 or 3 years we've really stepped up the sex and the marriage has gone from excellent to extraordinary.
> 
> The more sex we had the more we both wanted. The less we had, the less we wanted. We're both a lot happier with more.


I know this is not so PC since we're supposed to respect LDs and all that, but...

I would bet if most LDs would just give it a shot for a while and really try the HD lifestyle they would be SHOCKED at how much they liked it.


----------



## WandaJ (Aug 5, 2014)

Anon1111 said:


> I know this is not so PC since we're supposed to respect LDs and all that, but...
> 
> I would bet if most LDs would just give it a shot for a while and really try the HD lifestyle they would be SHOCKED at how much they liked it.


In their minds they are giving it a shot. They do it more often than they really want. 

There are people who just have different temperament.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Anon1111 said:


> I know this is not so PC since we're supposed to respect LDs and all that, but...
> 
> I would bet if most LDs would just give it a shot for a while and really try the HD lifestyle they would be SHOCKED at how much they liked it.


The LDs with responsive desire would. These are the women (not sure about the LD Guy situation) who always enjoy sex when they have it but can't seem to get started.

My wife is like this with going to the gym. Every. Single. Time when she's done she says "I feel great and am so glad I went" and yet, the next time, I've once again got to use a crowbar to get her out the door. Dunno what's up with that. I go, feel great and, therefore, am willing to do it again.

The LDs who think sex is icky, this isn't going to happen.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

WandaJ said:


> In their minds they are giving it a shot. They do it more often than they really want.
> 
> There are people who just have different temperament.


You know what?

There's something to both sides of that.

****ty unwanted sex leads to less sex. And I get that.

But little sex leads to even less sex. And I literally can't count the number of times women have said to me after it's been a while "why aren't we doing this more? You need to {convince me to|not be lazy|make time for it|prioritize it|remind me that I like it|etc}.

Hmm.


----------



## Plan 9 from OS (Jul 13, 2012)

MEM11363 said:


> He didn't only care about sex.
> 
> He allowed his wife to use sex to manipulate him. She demanded more and more for less and less until - in the year before he rebalanced the marriage:
> 
> ...


That's a huge improvement, but is that their final future state? That's 1.3 - 1.5 times a week.


----------



## Anon1111 (May 29, 2013)

I think the true LDs are extremely rare.

I think almost all LDs are situational.

There is either some resentment blocking desire or laziness or whatever.

It's not that there is no desire.

It's like a cold pool. LDs are like the people who try to inch their way in. "Oh my god it's so cold I'll never get used to it!"

HDs are the people who just dive right in and know they will like it once they're in.

But when an LD can just put aside their mental block and "jump in" they will see that it is not really cold at all.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

I have found, more often than not, female desire is highly contextualized and situational.

Witness the conservative housewives that band together and go on a girl's trip to vegas and all of a sudden it's 'girls gone wild' time.

Why? Because it's socially supported, mutually encouraged, consequence free, and full of attractive people.

So when I started to try to inject this kind of vibe into our marriage more frequently... all of a sudden she opened up a lot.


----------



## WandaJ (Aug 5, 2014)

marduk said:


> You know what?
> 
> There's something to both sides of that.
> 
> ...


maybe you are right, I don't know. This is not my area of expertise, as I am not in LD/HD marraige. But I have good female friends, who are very lukewarm about sex. They do it for their husbands, not for themselves.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

WandaJ said:


> maybe you are right, I don't know. This is not my area of expertise, as I am not in LD/HD marraige. But I have good female friends, who are very lukewarm about sex. They do it for their husbands, not for themselves.


And if, I dunno, they were off in vegas with a group of their girlfriends on a "what happens here stays here" trip and they ran into the werewolf guy from true blood with no shirt on in a club and he was DTF...

They'd totally be LD, right?

Somehow I doubt it.


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
I don't know how to tell how common true LDs are. I'm convinced my wife is one. She is convinced she is one.






Anon1111 said:


> I think the true LDs are extremely rare.
> 
> I think almost all LDs are situational.
> 
> ...


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening.

I'm not sure how to interpret "share". But yes the relationship is un balanced. I think of love as doing what you can for your partner, not as a trade. 

I have tried chasing. I have tried ignoring for months at a time. I have asked. I have picked her up and carried her to the bed. 

I'm no Adonis, but I am a good weight, no blemishes, clean, trim. I'm no athlete, but I think a 20km walk in the mountains, or a few hours in a kayak is a fun way to spend a day. 

She is attracted to movie stars that look sort of like me - but it doesn't seem to be a sexual attraction. 

She will not admit to any sexual fantasies. 

She knows I'm attracted to other women in a general sense - we talk about what TV actors / actresses are attractive. I don't tell her which of our female friends I find attractive. I don't know if she knows that they find me attractive. 






marduk said:


> Let's explore some things, man.
> 
> Do you share everything you have with your partner? And somehow, don't get everything they have to offer back?
> 
> ...


----------



## ocotillo (Oct 17, 2011)

marduk said:


> Do you know what turns your wife on about other guys -- past boyfriends, movie stars, whatever?
> 
> Do you know her fantasies, or does she say she doesn't have any?


For me, this hits a nail on the head, albeit indirectly. The prevailing wisdom is that loss of libido is never idiopathic. Maybe that's true as a general statement but at the same time, this is exactly what some of us have had to deal with.

My wife lost her libido for no apparent reason and after better than two decades it came roaring back for no apparent reason. It's tempting to take credit for "Fixing" the problem but that would be a big fat lie...


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening.
> 
> I'm not sure how to interpret "share". But yes the relationship is un balanced. I think of love as doing what you can for your partner, not as a trade.


So it's not a 50/50 deal, is what you're saying. Energetically.


> I have tried chasing. I have tried ignoring for months at a time. I have asked. I have picked her up and carried her to the bed.


What happens in these scenarios? Are the responses all the same (ho, hum?)


> I'm no Adonis, but I am a good weight, no blemishes, clean, trim. I'm no athlete, but I think a 20km walk in the mountains, or a few hours in a kayak is a fun way to spend a day.


Lean muscle mass?
% body fat?
Smoker?
Snappy dresser?
Smell nice?


> She is attracted to movie stars that look sort of like me - but it doesn't seem to be a sexual attraction.


What's common about them?

Not just appearance, but behaviour?


> She will not admit to any sexual fantasies.


How about past sexual partners?

Was she always low desire?

And if she tells you that, do you believe her?

Was she this way when you first hooked up? If so, why did you stay with her? If not, when did it change?


> She knows I'm attracted to other women in a general sense - we talk about what TV actors / actresses are attractive. I don't tell her which of our female friends I find attractive. I don't know if she knows that they find me attractive.


Do you ever get hit on?

If yes, does she get fussed if you do?

If not, why not?


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

ocotillo said:


> For me, this hits a nail on the head, albeit indirectly. The prevailing wisdom is that loss of libido is never idiopathic. Maybe that's true as a general statement but at the same time, this is exactly what some of us have had to deal with.
> 
> My wife lost her libido for no apparent reason and after better than two decades it came roaring back for no apparent reason. It's tempting to take credit for "Fixing" the problem but that would be a big fat lie...


I think it can be idiopathic.

I just think it's less often that, or hormonal, than most people think.

My wife, for example, claimed it was hormonal.

Until, you know, I did a bunch of stuff that turned her and other women on. All of a sudden, her hormones seemed just fine...


----------



## morituri (Apr 1, 2011)

marduk said:


> I think it can be idiopathic.
> 
> I just think it's less often that, or hormonal, than most people think.
> 
> ...


Indeed. Sexual attraction can be reignited by the "I don't need you" attitude and actions of one spouse towards the sexually non-responsive spouse.

Just go to the CWI and see how often when a BS leaves her/his sexually unresponsive WS, files for divorce and starts an intimate relationship with a member of the opposite sex, the WS drops the AP like a hot potato and starts chasing sexually the BS. Granted that in many cases it is not a genuine sexual reawakening but in many others it most definitely is.


----------



## Anon1111 (May 29, 2013)

Plan 9 from OS said:


> That's a huge improvement, but is that their final future state? That's 1.3 - 1.5 times a week.


For a reality check--

I was at 18x last year, 17x the year before that, 16x the year before that.

This year I'm at 19x so far. On current trend I will probably end up at 25ish by year end unless something majorly changes.

This is with full on effort from me.

In relative terms this is a significant improvement, although it is clearly pathetic.

70-80x per year sounds like total fantasy land to me, to be honest.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Anon1111 said:


> I
> 
> would bet if most LDs would just give it a shot for a while and really try the HD lifestyle they would be SHOCKED at how much they liked it.



Decision Analysis 101 says there's fallacy in them words 

The reason they don't want sex is that they don't want to get into having to experience it. They know sex leads to more sex. They fear sex and they don't want to be "tempted". Like food, like alcohol, like anything. It's a self defense mechanism.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

A few more thoughts...

There's two real reasons in my view. What I have coined "stupid" and "evil". The first is plain ignorance, the second is intentional. Note the quotes around the words. Also it's one the other or a mix.

A lot of those who have "fixed" their marriage are likely the first category, "ignorance" in the sense the LD partner isn't fully aware of what the non LD is going on. A lot of methods like MMSLP or NMMNG type books or 180 etc seem to work well.

As we move to the "evil" side things get more interesting . Not only the LD is aware of what is going on but they often actively go out of their way to deflect any efforts for a fix. There's a big intentional component here. 

The second category is usually the bottom of the barrel cases we see in TAM (sounds familiar ).

Divorce threats etc may work but the results aren't across the board equal. First group cases it's a great wake up call and work well, second group cases tend to have the opposite effect.

I wish I had an intern or two to plow thru TAM and collect some data on this, it's just a theory but I think there's something there.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

john117 said:


> Decision Analysis 101 says there's fallacy in them words
> 
> The reason they don't want sex is that they don't want to get into having to experience it. They know sex leads to more sex. They fear sex and they don't want to be "tempted". Like food, like alcohol, like anything. It's a self defense mechanism.


Or, quite frankly, laziness.

It's like getting off the couch to hit the gym instead of re-runs of grey's anatomy.


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening.
(multi-post not working on my computer)
Carrying her bodily to bed - gets a laugh, or an annoyed sound depending on her mood, but a no in any case. (this resulted in sex once in 30 years out of dozens of attempts).

Flowers, love notes, dinner out, etc results in "no" (with some reason) 90% of the time.

I am lean, but not particularly muscular. Don't smoke. I dress as neat casual, and she likes that. I stay very clean, can't comment on my own smell.

Her interest in movie / tv characters seems to be mostly appearance, and mostly directed toward people who look like me. She like how I look, she just doesn't find it (or anything) very sexual. 

We were 17 when we met - minimal previous experience for either of us. She was always LD, but I didn't recognize it for what it was for a very long time.

I do get hit on, but my friends are generally polite so it doesn't happen around my wife. I think she is generally aware, but trusts me completely (which she can).

I also have always had a good job. Interesting hobbies: I'm a pilot, and also do quite a bit of outdoor stuff and exotic travel. I'm outgoing and generally well liked. 


I'm making no claims of being the sexiest guy alive, but I think I'm OK. My wife is very happy with me, and I am with her - other than the limited (though much better than in the past) sex life. I think she is making a real attempt at sex - it is just our natural levels of desire are so very far apart.






marduk said:


> So it's not a 50/50 deal, is what you're saying. Energetically.
> 
> What happens in these scenarios? Are the responses all the same (ho, hum?)
> 
> ...


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening.
> (multi-post not working on my computer)
> Carrying her bodily to bed - gets a laugh, or an annoyed sound depending on her mood, but a no in any case. (this resulted in sex once in 30 years out of dozens of attempts).
> 
> ...


Are you willing to risk ending your marriage to improve your sex life?


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

marduk said:


> Or, quite frankly, laziness.
> 
> 
> 
> It's like getting off the couch to hit the gym instead of re-runs of grey's anatomy.



A good analogy actually. You have the group that doesn't know getting off ones tail is good vs the one that thinks it only happens to others.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Bugged said:


> Uhmm.let me choose...I'll go for evil..it suits me better..



Duly noted


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

There's lots of people not fit to drive, too. Yet they do. The key is screening, but in the dating phase we look for what we want to see...


----------



## Plan 9 from OS (Jul 13, 2012)

john117 said:


> A few more thoughts...
> 
> *There's two real reasons in my view. What I have coined "stupid" and "evil".* The first is plain ignorance, the second is intentional. Note the quotes around the words. Also it's one the other or a mix.
> 
> ...


I agree with this notion. I spent a short period of time on another board that was for people living in a sexless marriage forum. It was a pointless waste of time, and I wish I wouldn't have wasted my time. Not that I spent that much there anyways, but still don't know what I was thinking. Anyways, I got a glimpse of what a subforum on TAM would look like if you dedicated a spot for those living in a sexless marriage, and let's just say that it would be a soul crushing experience that would ultimately help very little. 

I do not recommend a sexless marriage subforum for this site. 

I think much of the problem with that site is that they failed to acknowledge that the sexless marriage some of them are experiencing my be simply due to the fact that the refusing spouse is "evil". He/she is intentionally hurting the marriage as a means to getting a marital situation that squelches the needs of the refused spouse. If their gambut is wrong, then it's divorce. However, if they can succeed in imposing their will on their HD spouse wrt sex...they have a great situation that they can exploit. They get all the companionship they want plus the cover they need to not be judged - all they need is a spouse who is willing to self-sacrifice for a sham.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Man, more people agreeing with me. Look out purveyors of pop psych DIY marriage help books! Stand aside and let a real (*) psychologist show you how to do it 

View attachment 36746


(*) well, my degrees say psychology :rofl:

I think Plan nailed it. Not a lot of people acknowledge "evil" LD spouses... It's easier to try to blame all kinds of things other than the actual root cause.

They never see intent or "evil". They don't know enough about the darkness of the human mind so they give everyone the benefit of the doubt. Things slow down, then come to a crawl and one can actually hear the rationalization hamster running laps in their heads...


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

john117 said:


> I wish I had an intern or two to plow thru TAM and collect some data on this, it's just a theory but I think there's something there.


The problem with your theory is that it is utterly narcissistic in its assumptions, that is, assumes that LD has no thoughts or feelings of their own, that it is all about the HD.

You're saying that no one wants to see the intent of the "evilness" that is LD or the "stupidity" of not knowing, but maybe they just realize that, actually, not everything is about them.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

AA,

Amen to that. M2 doesn't WANT to be LD. That's a ludicrous thought. 




always_alone said:


> The problem with your theory is that it is utterly narcissistic in its assumptions, that is, assumes that LD has no thoughts or feelings of their own, that it is all about the HD.
> 
> You're saying that no one wants to see the intent of the "evilness" that is LD or the "stupidity" of not knowing, but maybe they just realize that, actually, not everything is about them.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

MEM11363 said:


> Amen to that. M2 doesn't WANT to be LD. That's a ludicrous thought.



Confucius says anecdotal evidence isn't.

Most people that are LD - intentional or otherwise - are LD because they don't know better - "stupid" or because it fits their purpose - "evil". 

The "doesn't WANT" crowd is fairly small and is the crowd that tries all kinds of things to not be LD. A rather small minority in LD land I'm afraid.

Doesn't WANT to be LD is different than doesn't want to do anything about it. Think of weight control. Why bother waking up and hitting the road or gym when you can sleep in?


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

always_alone said:


> The problem with your theory is that it is utterly narcissistic in its assumptions, that is, assumes that LD has no thoughts or feelings of their own, that it is all about the HD.
> 
> 
> 
> You're saying that no one wants to see the intent of the "evilness" that is LD or the "stupidity" of not knowing, but maybe they just realize that, actually, not everything is about them.



In case we forget, this is about marriage, and upholding an LD partner to some communal standard of sexual performance is hardly narcissistic.

If the non LD spouse expected sex three times a day well yes, that's excessive but realistically now, are we talking about such outlier cases?

I don't think we are. But LD's have a good way of turning the whole communal sexual performance expectation or standard around an d making the non LD spouse appear to be a fiend of some kind. 

A marriage is sexual by nature so by taking the non LD's feelings off the table and focusing on the LD's feelings only - or biasing the decision so that it's all about the LD's wants and needs instead of the marriage's wants and needs - all we do is perpetuate the status quo. If the LD person has strong negative or stressing feelings about sex then they should not get married period.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Put another way, how many LD's would there be if both partners to sign a legally binding agreement of performance that would absolve the non LD of any marital obligations if the LD failed to meet some community based performance standards?

Hint: not many


----------



## Anon1111 (May 29, 2013)

Compare it to negotiating with a union.

Business and union both have an interest in the success of the "marriage."

However, each is willing to risk the success of the marriage over distributive gains.

Union may come to believe that the monopolistic power entitled them to greater and greater share of these gains.

Business will play this game for a while to keep thing going, but eventually the price gets too high.

Union does not trust Business because Business is always saying the price is too high. Union believes Business is fixated on distributive gains just as Union is.

If Business could cause Union to see that there is a real line beyond which the marriage is not profitable, Union would be reasonable (in theory).

But over time Union grows so accustomed to dismissing information provided by Business and believing their monopolistic power trumps all that a blindness develops.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

john117 said:


> Confucius says anecdotal evidence isn't.
> 
> Most people that are LD - intentional or otherwise - are LD because they don't know better - "stupid" or because it fits their purpose - "evil".


Again, this is your projection and your anecdote, based only on your perspective,and still not allowing that the LD has any thoughts or feelings or their own.

HD are welcome to exit a marriage if they find the conditions unsuitable or unfulfilling. Of course it isn't *all* about the LD, but in your theory, it's all only ever about the HD. Either LD does what they are "supposed" to do, or they are stupid or evil.

Your anecdote isn't any more evidence than MEM's is.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Anon1111 said:


> If Business could cause Union to see that there is a real line beyond which the marriage is not profitable, Union would be reasonable (in theory).
> 
> But over time Union grows so accustomed to dismissing information provided by Business and believing their monopolistic power trumps all that a blindness develops.


And if Union could persuade Business that in fact there are many other indirect costs that also impact the health of the business, including the bottom line, perhaps Business might calculate some of these more human and environmental factors into their sustainability plan.

But instead, Business remains wedded to putting the squeeze on Union, believing that there is an endless supply of cheap labour waiting to be exploited, and so they just don't give a damn.


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
no.
I'd like a better sex life, but its not the most important thing to me. 

I don't think its possible with my wife, since my idea of a "great sex life" is to have a partner who is actively enthusiastically interested, not someone who will perform specific acts because they feel that they need to. 

I'm not willing to trade my wife for someone who would give me that sex life because I would lose all the other great things about our marriage.



marduk said:


> Are you willing to risk ending your marriage to improve your sex life?


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening.
It all comes down to people having very different basic levels of desire for sex. Nothing either can do about that. Then we have a situation that is asymmetric. If neither acts, there is minimal sex because it is never initiated. If the HD initiates (which is OK), the LD can reject (which is OK) and there is still no sex. It is up to the HD to basically insist to provide a (possibly tacit) choice of sex or divorce. The the LD gets to choose.

It is unavoidable that the control is with the LD. Barring rape (which is of course abhorrent), the person who wants less sex controls the frequency of sex. That leaves the HD with the options of acceptance, abandonment, pressure, or bribes - all of which are distasteful. 

The basic difference in views of sex leaves the LD unable to comprehend why the HD cares so much and thinking that they only care about sex. It leaves the HD feeling their partner is incredibly selfish because they won't do such a simple (and enjoyable) thing to make them happy. Its pure poison.

I think the sex isn't even the biggest problem, it is the feelings it causes. Each feels that the other doesn't care about them.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

richardsharpe said:


> I think the sex isn't even the biggest problem, it is the feelings it causes. Each feels that the other doesn't care about them.


Yup


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

always_alone said:


> Again, this is your projection and your anecdote, based only on your perspective,and still not allowing that the LD has any thoughts or feelings or their own.
> 
> HD are welcome to exit a marriage if they find the conditions unsuitable or unfulfilling. Of course it isn't *all* about the LD, but in your theory, it's all only ever about the HD. Either LD does what they are "supposed" to do, or they are stupid or evil.
> 
> Your anecdote isn't any more evidence than MEM's is.



You missed the part about the expected community standard of performance. 

Also, please note tgat I'm not talking or projecting specifically about my case while MEM did just that.

HD's do exit marriages at a rate that is bounded by the fvcked up legal and even moral system. LD's have no such constraints. 

It's all about the relationship, incidentally. Not about either partner. Framing it as such is standard LD methodology.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

richardsharpe said:


> The basic difference in views of sex leaves the LD unable to comprehend why the HD cares so much and thinking that they only care about sex. It leaves the HD feeling their partner is incredibly selfish because they won't do such a simple (and enjoyable) thing to make them happy. Its pure poison.
> 
> .



Unable or unwilling. Or a mix.

"Stupid" or "evil"...

Where's my publisher'a email?


----------



## Centurions (Jan 31, 2013)

Greetings

I've always been "HD". I'm almost always interested in sex, on a daily basis. Certainly, there are occasional days where I'm wiped out and tired from a long day at work. On such days, I may not initiate sex, though with a little effort I can be "persuaded". Lol.

I would not tolerate on going denial of sex. I've told girlfriends that if they get all weird and pissy with no sex, we would be done and I would soon find a new woman. Problems and challenges always come, and you address them together and deal with it. No matter the problem, though, the raw passion and desire for sex must be maintained, or we are done.

Life is too short to endure living in a sexless hell. To do so, to me, is just enduring a grinding "existence" and not really "living".
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

The stable 'bridge' between an LD and an HD is made of some blend of comprehension and generosity. 

They find some middle ground and are both grateful for each other's generosity. The HD doesn't saturate the LD in unwanted sexual pressure. And the LD doesn't pretend that sex isn't important to the HD. 

As for John's claim that I'm projecting my experience - he's right. It's also true that I see a lot of similarities between our situation and that of other folks. And I have made enough mistakes to understand how these situations can spiral down. 

I hope that M2 is mostly driven by a desire to please, as opposed to a fear of displeasing but it's hard to know for certain. 

What's the difference between:
- an LD's failing to to understand how important sex is and 
- an HD failing to grasp how hard it would be to have unwanted sex

IMO that lack of understanding is mostly a combination of ignorance and selfishness. Not evil. 

Perhaps in the cases where an HD desperately bids up the price of marital sex, it leads to such a big power imbalance that it begins to corrupt the LD. But that's a joint failing. 




richardsharpe said:


> Good evening.
> It all comes down to people having very different basic levels of desire for sex. Nothing either can do about that. Then we have a situation that is asymmetric. If neither acts, there is minimal sex because it is never initiated. If the HD initiates (which is OK), the LD can reject (which is OK) and there is still no sex. It is up to the HD to basically insist to provide a (possibly tacit) choice of sex or divorce. The the LD gets to choose.
> 
> It is unavoidable that the control is with the LD. Barring rape (which is of course abhorrent), the person who wants less sex controls the frequency of sex. That leaves the HD with the options of acceptance, abandonment, pressure, or bribes - all of which are distasteful.
> ...


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

MEM, there's a reason I use quotes around the terms I chose . When I submit my work to Psychology Today we'll need to coin new terms, and LD type A vs B is too impersonal 

Regarding "unwanted sex" again this goes against the population stereotypes as we call them. If virtually all members of a group expect and practice X upon marriage, then X becomes a defacto standard for that population. If the issue is discussed ahead of time I'm all for it, but TAM is full of cases where it is not the case.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

As I understand it you did give R2 an ultimatum of sorts. You let her know that sex once every 4-8 weeks was not ok with you. While not explicitly saying: Fix it or I'll leave, if I understand correctly you explained how hurtful her behavior was given that you've repeatedly explained how much this matters to you. 

In one sense, this is actually a highly symmetric situation:
HD: If you don't care enough about me to put a minimum amount of effort into pleasing me sexually, than you lack sufficient commitment for me to continue the marriage.

LD: If you pressure me to do something I'd really rather not do, than you can't love me very much. 

Symmetric in the sense that, at that level of conversation both viewpoints are equally valid. 

But that's not really what this is about. Because in many of these marriages, the HD spouse has an equally high drive to please their LD spouse OUTSIDE the bedroom. Mostly stuff gets done the way the LD wants because the HD enjoys seeing their partner happy. 

Remapping this theme back to sex, the HD can ask a legitimate question: 

Knowing how happy this makes me, why doesn't it make you happy just to do it for me? 

And that question, is at the heart of this dynamic. 

While I have an allergy to transactional sex, I'm fairly comfortable with the idea that a healthy marriage is predicated on generosity. We BOTH do things in the spirit of putting the other first. 





richardsharpe said:


> Good evening.
> It all comes down to people having very different basic levels of desire for sex. Nothing either can do about that. Then we have a situation that is asymmetric. If neither acts, there is minimal sex because it is never initiated. If the HD initiates (which is OK), the LD can reject (which is OK) and there is still no sex. It is up to the HD to basically insist to provide a (possibly tacit) choice of sex or divorce. The the LD gets to choose.
> 
> It is unavoidable that the control is with the LD. Barring rape (which is of course abhorrent), the person who wants less sex controls the frequency of sex. That leaves the HD with the options of acceptance, abandonment, pressure, or bribes - all of which are distasteful.
> ...


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
I believe the LD would put it "Why do you need this one thing to make you happy when I do so much else for you. Is that all that matters to you?"



MEM11363 said:


> snip
> 
> Remapping this theme back to sex, the HD can ask a legitimate question:
> 
> ...


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Richard,

My response to that would be:

We both know that it's a huge deal. It's why fidelity is so highly prized in general and also to both of us. The reason you wouldn't be ok with me sleeping with another woman is because you know how powerful it can be. 

It's not only unkind to pretend otherwise, it's dishonest. 

-------
That's the soft delivery style. 







richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> I believe the LD would put it "Why do you need this one thing to make you happy when I do so much else for you. Is that all that matters to you?"


----------



## Hopeful Cynic (Apr 27, 2014)

The whole HD-LD division is a matter of attitude. They get into a dynamic where it's pressure vs rejection, a lot like tug of war. The HD person is pulling and pulling on the rope and the LD person is pulling just as hard in the opposite direction. Each thinks their problems will be solved if the other side just lets go of the rope, dammit.

Really, a marriage should be a team. Both partners should be standing side by side, so that pulling on the rope gets the flag to both of them. An effective team needs humility and communication and effort to understand the other partner.

This is all for situational LD though. I really don't understand innate LD. May as well not be human.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Innate LD is all about past baggage of fear and control. A lot of people are terrified of "opening up" and sex is as good an opportunity to open up as any.

As I have said, make sexual withholding in marriage an automatic annulment regardless of other issues or children and you'll see how many LD's are made versus born.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

john117 said:


> You missed the part about the expected community standard of performance.
> 
> Also, please note tgat I'm not talking or projecting specifically about my case while MEM did just that.
> 
> ...


No, you spoke in generalities. But tell me, what actually is your source of evidence? Is it the bitter rants of the sexually frustrated making assumptions about the intentions of their spouse? If so, it's not a particular good source.

Standards of community practice are fine, but ideally should be established beforehand --and either way necessitate the involvement and agreement of both parties.

If it is the relationship you are actually concerned about, then it has to be about *both* parties.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Personal said:


> A normal marriage™ is a sexual union. Any spouse (regardless of whatever else they offer) that chooses not to share sex with their marital partner most of the time or all of the time are simply not behaving as a wife or husband.
> .


There are very many different reasons for marriage. This whole idea that it is a primarily a romantic/sexual union is quite recent, and most certainly not universal. Marriage is also about property, money, politics, extended family, and let's not forget children. 

Disney fairy tales aside, it really isn't Prince Charming swooping down and whisking his beautiful princess off for endless nights of steamy passion.

If it is a sexual union you (one) are looking for, you (one) should be clear about that at the outset. That way you are in a better position to negotiate your (one's) "standard of practice".


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

I should offer a Game of Thrones joke here but I shall restrain myself


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

richardsharpe said:


> That leaves the HD with the options of acceptance, abandonment, pressure, or bribes - all of which are distasteful.


Or inspiration, seduction, enticement...


----------



## thread the needle (May 4, 2015)

LD / HD issues appearing before marriage is clearly the exception not the rule. These issues don't come up until the price of divorce skyrockets with kids, mortgages, retirements, time invested, social life getting smaller before it expands, pain, rejection, sadness, etc. 

In the beginning the LD uses the high price of the HD divorcing as leverage to have their way. If and when the HD tires of this and addresses their codependence and asserts themselves towards independence for their own happiness making it clear divorce is the only option without an equally balanced solution being implemented without LD ideals being fully met before any improvement is offered by them, then the LD has to make the same choice. 

The LD must ask if the price of divorce is too high for thrm to continue insisting it's acceptable not meeting their HDs needs?

The question that baffles me in these HD /LD threads is "why did you get married if you had mismatched blah blah blah..."

The answer is because the mismatch was not known at the time it was decided to get married. It looked exactly like the sex would always be awesome with rare exception

BTW we invest gargantuan amounts of time trying to fully comprehend these LD HD issues and still don't have full consensus since the number of combinations and variables seem large. Those that don't have the time or the interest to invest the time that we do seem clearly doomed to either acceptance ro divorce. I hope they divorce but I bet they stay more than go and tolerate it as sad as I am to say so.


----------



## woundedwarrior (Dec 9, 2011)

always_alone said:


> There are very many different reasons for marriage. This whole idea that it is a primarily a romantic/sexual union is quite recent, and most certainly not universal. Marriage is also about property, money, politics, extended family, and let's not forget children.
> 
> Disney fairy tales aside, it really isn't Prince Charming swooping down and whisking his beautiful princess off for endless nights of steamy passion.
> 
> If it is a sexual union you (one) are looking for, you (one) should be clear about that at the outset. That way you are in a better position to negotiate your (one's) "standard of practice".



You're absolutely right, you can have a marriage without sexual union, passion or intimacy, it's called "friendship". Of which you can have every aspect you mentioned. But that's what it is "friendship" and nothing more. Still a treasured and rewarding relationship, but marriage it's NOT.

I know this has become the day and age where we can change the meaning, redefine just about anything, so I guess any person can call anything whatever they choose to.

I don't buy into the whole LD persona, myself. Humans are sexual creatures. If there is a loss of passion, it's because of something else missing, not a made up "free pass" to not have sex.


----------



## Janky (Nov 26, 2013)

woundedwarrior said:


> You're absolutely right, you can have a marriage without sexual union, passion or intimacy, it's called "friendship". Of which you can have every aspect you mentioned. But that's what it is "friendship" and nothing more. Still a treasured and rewarding relationship, but marriage it's NOT.
> 
> I know this has become the day and age where we can change the meaning, redefine just about anything, so I guess any person can call anything whatever they choose to.
> 
> I don't buy into the whole LD persona, myself. Humans are sexual creatures. If there is a loss of passion, it's because of something else missing, not a made up "free pass" to not have sex.


X2

Its not that they dont want to have sex, they just dont want to with you.

Im sure that sex drive would come back pretty fast if the SO was single again.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

always_alone said:


> Or inspiration, seduction, enticement...



Blackmail...


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Personal said:


> Normal marriage™ is sex and more, to pretend it isn't is a travesty upon reason.


Again, historically and culturally, this isn't really true, as much as one might like it to be.

There is no vow of sexual frequency in any tradition that I am familiar with, and a lot of people around the world are simply informed of their marriage, and have very little say. Marrying for "love" is recent. Marrying for family is much older, but remember that it doesn"t take a lot of sex to have kids --and the plethora of world religions that would insist that fornication is for procreation not pleasure.

So, while sexlessness would make you feel perfectly entitled to sleep with whoever and wherever (and this indeed is what many choose, whether sexless or not), technically speaking, it would be just you breaking vows.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

woundedwarrior said:


> Humans are sexual creatures.


Well sure. But it is a spectrum, and a pretty wide one at that.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

always_alone said:


> Well sure. But it is a spectrum, and a pretty wide one at that.



A rather narrow one actually defined by culture age and the law 

It's only wide if you just go by a single number.


----------



## Plan 9 from OS (Jul 13, 2012)

always_alone said:


> There are very many different reasons for marriage. This whole idea that it is a primarily a romantic/sexual union is quite recent, and most certainly not universal. Marriage is also about property, money, politics, extended family, and let's not forget children.
> 
> Disney fairy tales aside, it really isn't Prince Charming swooping down and whisking his beautiful princess off for endless nights of steamy passion.
> 
> If it is a sexual union you (one) are looking for, you (one) should be clear about that at the outset. That way you are in a better position to negotiate your (one's) "standard of practice".


I liked this post of your primarily because 1) it discounts the "soulmate" belief that some people possess and 2) your desire for clear communication up front about expectations prior to marriage.

Although you are quite right that for the majority of our history marriage was entered into for a myriad of reasons that go beyond love and desires to live a life with someone you feel is special, we have also evolved as a civilization. Just because our ancestors felt bound by certain beliefs and practices derived from stone age, bronze age and iron age philosophies, it doesn't mean that we must maintain that mindset today. 

Our concept of marriage today is actually a portion of the development of human ideals from the age of enlightenment through today. Long gone are those days where tribal leaders arranging marriages to unite strong families, or feudal lords are watching over his peasants on how they live their lives - so that they don't lose serfs to a neighboring lord, men taking their right to sleep with female slaves because they were the property of the master or even how ancient Greek males would take younger boys (teens? prepubescents?) and use for their own sexual pleasure. 

In the U.S. and I assume virtually all of the first world, individuals have rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. For most of our history, people believed that God appointed emperors and kings to rule over the commoners, and religion was used as a means to keep poor people in bondage to the nobility and royals. Thank goodness we no longer live in such dark times. Regardless of what the divorce statistics may show today, we now live in a time where marriage is not used as a political tool to further the ambitions of a patriarch or as a means to lighten the financial burden. Today, marriage is about finding an individual to love you and for you to love - and to bring a family into existence if that is what you both desire. Sexual intimacy is a critical component of a healthy marriage. Even early in our history, I'm sure plenty of marriages back then still had a relatively healthy sex life. Scratching out a living was hard in the past, so most likely if people had less sex a few hundred years ago it was because a lot more energy was needed for survival. 

When they could, I'm sure they did - if the marriage was healthy.


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

Actually, historically, there was no vow as to sexual frequency in large part because (as a technical legal matter), a male could not rape his wife. Which is to say, lack of consent did not cause sexual relations with one's wife to be "rape". A man had an absolute right to demand that his wife have sex with him whenever he wanted, and he could not be prosecuted for forcing her to have sex against her will. Knowing this, and given the limited economic opportunities and absence of social support for unmarried mothers, most women simply granted (begrudging) consent to avoid being beaten or discarded. Adding a vow of required frequency would have seemed ludicrous and superfluous. When a woman married, she was in effect agreeing to have sex whenever her husband wanted.


----------



## aine (Feb 15, 2014)

Bugged, I liked you post, it is hard to conjure up desire where there is none. I also think that generally the HD partner is the male and the LD partner is the female. Of course there are exceptions.
The male is wired differently (no one will dispute that) and his desire for sex is equivalent to being hungry, it is a physiological need (may be other things too) but telling him you don't feel like it is equivalent to telling him you wont cook/buy food when he is hungry I guess.
However, many men (sometimes my husband included) do not realise it takes a while for a wife to warm up (that is the way we are made), they need to put a bit more effort into the process and start it before the bedroom. An occasional 'wham bang thank you mam' is acceptable but not regularly, it does not make a wife feel very good about herself. To my mind that just dulls desire even more in the wifey and left feeling a bit used and undesired. I have no inclination to have sex with my husband if that is how he proceeds. Yes, he may want it but I want something too and it's not just the 'end result'


----------



## ocotillo (Oct 17, 2011)

always_alone said:


> --and the plethora of world religions that would insist that fornication is for procreation not pleasure.


Fornication?


----------



## brooklynAnn (Jun 29, 2015)

You guys need to read this new post.

:http://talkaboutmarriage.com/ladies-lounge/282562-husband-distant-unloving.html

Then, have a talk on sexless marriage.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

john117 said:


> A rather narrow one actually defined by culture age and the law
> 
> It's only wide if you just go by a single number.


??? You've lost me, I'm afraid. How do you figure?


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Personal said:


> It is a ridiculous assertion, that historically and culturally sex has nothing to do with marriage.


First off, I never said that marriage has nothing to do with sex. I just said that marriage has many other purposes, most notably control of property and wealth, that define it. 

And yes, I'm quite aware that people are sexual, and will fill that need however they can. Infidelity and promiscuity are by no means recent inventions.

But in the end, marriage itself is much more of a practical institution than a romantic one. Maybe one needs to consummate, but umm, that actually only takes once.


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
Its important to separate situational from inherent LD

Situational LD is when your partner is doing, or not doing things that destroy the interest in sex. Inherent LD is when you just have a low interest in sex and there is nothing your partner can do that would change that 

Both exist. 




brooklynAnn said:


> You guys need to read this new post.
> 
> :http://talkaboutmarriage.com/ladies-lounge/282562-husband-distant-unloving.html
> 
> Then, have a talk on sexless marriage.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

To my HD brethren,

If you want to understand how what Bugged describes below (having sex with NO desire) might feel 'in concept', the following is the best analogy I've got for you.

Pick your favorite desert. Ideally something pretty rich like double chocolate cake, or milky way bars. But frankly whatever your favorite is, will do. 

Now eat it until you are completely full. 

Now eat one more serving. That last serving didn't feel so good did it? Even though your taste buds blasted that delicious flavor into your brain (like a lite version of an orgasm), you are now on the edge of feeling nauseous. 

If at this point you're not convinced, eat another serving. Careful though, if you hit the point where you toss your cookies, you might find this is no longer your favorite desert anymore. 

THAT is as close as you're going to get to a 'desire free' sexual experience with someone else when you're not in an 'all about them' mode. 

And my genuine understanding of THAT, is why M2 and I still have a good sex life. 

And it's why 'pacing' is so incredibly important when your spouse has responsive desire. 

When we start playing, that slow pace I set is sort of the time lapse equivalent of letting yourself 'get hungry' in the dessert eating scenario above. When you're full, if you can simply wait a couple hours you will be hungry again. 

So whatever that warm up sequence is with M2, sometimes 5 minutes, sometimes 10-15 minutes, that's the window in which she gets hungry. 

Or doesn't. And if she doesn't, she has two choices. One of which is to stop. She almost never does that, but if she wants to she can. 








Bugged said:


> you're not getting my point..i was confuting that you actually have a choice when the desire is not there...have you ever had sex with no desire? i have...and it is a pretty awful experience...so you don't choose to withold..you withold because of how you feel..you don't choose to feel that way...
> 
> well in my case i moved out...but somehow it hasn't solved the problems...there are _feelings _involved you know...:frown2:


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> no.
> I'd like a better sex life, but its not the most important thing to me.
> 
> ...


This is great.

It also limits your options for an effective strategy to change it.

If I were you, I'd accept her for who she is and try to let go of the rest.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening.
> It all comes down to people having very different basic levels of desire for sex. Nothing either can do about that. Then we have a situation that is asymmetric. If neither acts, there is minimal sex because it is never initiated. If the HD initiates (which is OK), the LD can reject (which is OK) and there is still no sex. It is up to the HD to basically insist to provide a (possibly tacit) choice of sex or divorce. The the LD gets to choose.
> 
> It is unavoidable that the control is with the LD. Barring rape (which is of course abhorrent), the person who wants less sex controls the frequency of sex. That leaves the HD with the options of acceptance, abandonment, pressure, or bribes - all of which are distasteful.
> ...


Actually, no. There is a way out that does not leave control with the LD person.

And, sometimes, for the LD person... being in control of sex is part of the weight of it, which leads to less sex.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Holdingontoit said:


> Actually, historically, there was no vow as to sexual frequency in large part because (as a technical legal matter), a male could not rape his wife. Which is to say, lack of consent did not cause sexual relations with one's wife to be "rape". A man had an absolute right to demand that his wife have sex with him whenever he wanted, and he could not be prosecuted for forcing her to have sex against her will. Knowing this, and given the limited economic opportunities and absence of social support for unmarried mothers, most women simply granted (begrudging) consent to avoid being beaten or discarded. Adding a vow of required frequency would have seemed ludicrous and superfluous. When a woman married, she was in effect agreeing to have sex whenever her husband wanted.


Awesome. And one wonders why someone might dig in their heels about sexual self-determination and insist that maybe there is more than one perspective at play here?


----------



## WandaJ (Aug 5, 2014)

marduk said:


> And if, I dunno, they were off in vegas with a group of their girlfriends on a "what happens here stays here" trip and they ran into the werewolf guy from true blood with no shirt on in a club and he was DTF...
> 
> They'd totally be LD, right?
> 
> Somehow I doubt it.


Yes, but that would be short term. I actually saw that, witnessed that from my very best friend. The thrill of new was great, but after a while her interest would diminish again. The funny thing is guys are all over her, because she is pretty, intelligent and funny, and loves to flirt and tell dirty jokes. They all think she is sex volcano

Guess what though? right now, divorced, she is trying harder because she realizes it is important for her new LTR partner - AND because he just showers her in attention, affection, compliments, etc. She says her ego is so "massaged" by all this, that she does it just to hear more of it. 

And that part is often actually missing on men's part, once they are already in the relationship. It is another bait and switch.


----------



## ocotillo (Oct 17, 2011)

Bugged said:


> ...have you ever had sex with no desire? i have...and it is a pretty awful experience...


Is this something that can be put into words? Would you agree with MEM's rich desert analogy?


----------



## Plan 9 from OS (Jul 13, 2012)

always_alone said:


> First off, I never said that marriage has nothing to do with sex. I just said that marriage has many other purposes, most notably control of property and wealth, that define it.
> 
> And yes, I'm quite aware that people are sexual, and will fill that need however they can. Infidelity and promiscuity are by no means recent inventions.
> 
> But in the end, marriage itself is much more of a practical institution than a romantic one. Maybe one needs to consummate, but umm, that actually only takes once.


You do not need marriage to have sex, partner with someone to share assets or to have children. Of of these activities can be easily done by themselves. Assuming we're talking about 2 rational people:


No one marries to buy real estate - you can buy and sell properties as a single person
No one gets married just to have children - people have "accidents" all the time, or a woman my go to a clinic to have a baby.
No one gets married just to have sex - sex is available freely with anyone willing to do it with you without the need for a marriage license. Of course, if you are a religious person then you may stupidly get married just because you cannot stand not having sex anymore...
People DO get married because they fall in love with someone.

In most cases, the love one person has for another is THE reason why people get married. Sexual relations are a critical means to express the marital love 2 people have for one another. The other reasons you provide are dependant upon and subservient to the love a man has for a woman and vice versa. 

So yes, I agree that marriage is a practical arrangement between 2 people. But without the love between 2 people, the agreement never takes place.


----------



## BeachGuy (Jul 6, 2011)

WandaJ said:


> And that part is often actually missing on men's part, once they are already in the relationship. It is another bait and switch.


May I ask for clarification here? Do you mean the men are baiting and switching or the woman? Just curious.


----------



## WandaJ (Aug 5, 2014)

I am not LD, but I can not just imagine having sex when I am completely not into it. I think it would build resentment in me, instead of feeling of closeness.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Plan 9 from OS said:


> In most cases, the love one person has for another is THE reason why people get married. Sexual relations are a critical means to express the marital love 2 people have for one another. The other reasons you provide are dependant upon and subservient to the love a man has for a woman and vice versa.


Yes, I agree that this is more common these days, that people will marry for love. But arranged marriages are still very widely practiced around the globe. And plenty of people will simply choose a marriage partner because it will advance their career, improve their social standing or status, or to portray a certain image of themselves to the world.

Such marriages are not at all romantic - they are there to fulfill a social function, whether that is to produce heirs to continue the family name and control wealth, or to increase the voter base by giving a candidate the illusion that he (or she) promotes "family values". 

In the end, there are lots of reasons for getting married, and ultimately I don't think you can assume that it is about love. Or sex.

Where we do agree is that it's very important to be clear and honest about what one wants and expects --although I suspect that quite a lot of people just say what they think the other person wants to hear so they can get what they want.

Not that I'm cynical or anything...


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Personal said:


> So situational LD people shouldn't be married in that particular situation. While inherent LD people shouldn't be in normal marriages (you know the kind that icky sex is normal) at all.


I just don't think it's so black and white. If you are compatible (both LD), why not get married? If you are HD, why not stay with someone that you have a deep emotional connection with, even if the sex isn't all you dreamed it would be?

Obviously we all have our needs and deal-breakers, and we have to be true to these. But a blanket "no LD deserves to participate in marriage" is much too harsh, IMHO, and puts *all* blame and responsibility on the LD, when in fact it may be the HD that is the real source of the problem.

If I am turning off my SO to the point that he doesn't want me anymore, that is *my* failing is it not?


----------



## anonmd (Oct 23, 2014)

brooklynAnn said:


> You guys need to read this new post.
> 
> :http://talkaboutmarriage.com/ladies-lounge/282562-husband-distant-unloving.html
> 
> Then, have a talk on sexless marriage.


Thread has been blown away, must have been a troll. I called it first:grin2:


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

AA,

Every situation is different. I believe that if we had complete information about every sexless marriage we would see a bell curve distribution representing percentage of responsibility. 

At the far left end of the curve are the folks who pulled a very intentional bait and switch. These are people who admit they weren't ever that attracted to their partners but had frequent sex with them until reaching a high level of relationship stability and they felt 'safe' to stop pretending. 

At the far right side of the curve are the HD folks who stopped making an effort to be 'attractive' once they reached a high level of relationship stability. 

And in the middle where most folks are, there is a lot of shared responsibility for this outcome. 
Lack of discipline:
- Folks letting themselves go physically (either HD or LD) which reduces desire and desirability 
- Misdirecting their sexual energy towards vibrators / porn
- Groping their spouses despite knowing this is unwanted

Lack of honesty:
- About turn ones and turn offs (LD)
- Being defensive about honest, constructive feedback (HD) and in doing so discouraging that type communication

Selfishness:
- Pusing for a high frequency in the face of frequent rejection without making a good faith effort to understand WHY your spouse is avoiding sex
- Pretending the overall relationship is great because all of your needs are being met - despite knowing your HD spouse is clearly unhappy with how you are treating them (LD)





always_alone said:


> I just don't think it's so black and white. If you are compatible (both LD), why not get married? If you are HD, why not stay with someone that you have a deep emotional connection with, even if the sex isn't all you dreamed it would be?
> 
> Obviously we all have our needs and deal-breakers, and we have to be true to these. But a blanket "no LD deserves to participate in marriage" is much too harsh, IMHO, and puts *all* blame and responsibility on the LD, when in fact it may be the HD that is the real source of the problem.
> 
> If I am turning off my SO to the point that he doesn't want me anymore, that is *my* failing is it not?


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
As far as I can tell, HD people really can't imagine what it is like to not want, or at least be happy with sex with their partners. Maybe they aren't really in the mood at the time, but it still seems like an easy thing to do to please someone you love. They cannot imagine that it could be a distasteful, possibly degrading chore, a feel of prostituting themselves, something no one would ever ask of someone they love. 

LD people really can't imagine what it is like to feel sexually rejected for most of your life. Can't understand that sexual desire is so intimately connected to love that the rejection is the same as being told "I don't love you, we are just friends" almost every day of their lives.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

always_alone said:


> ??? You've lost me, I'm afraid. How do you figure?



Each culture and age group and probably other factors have rather narrowly defined stereotypes of expected sexual performance. A 30 year old Italian would have different numbers than a 30 year old Wherever. Within the group it's safe to assume that x times a week would be the average, with a rather narrow deviation. The 3-4 times a week value for example can't grow much more (not many will go for 7x and most people will consider anything under 1x is sub optimal) so there's a narrow range that most people will agree. I'm sure you can find a couple in Italy in their 30's where once a month is fine but statistically they're not typical.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

john117 said:


> Each culture and age group and probably other factors have rather narrowly defined stereotypes of expected sexual performance. A 30 year old Italian would have different numbers than a 30 year old Wherever. Within the group it's safe to assume that x times a week would be the average, with a rather narrow deviation. The 3-4 times a week value for example can't grow much more (not many will go for 7x and most people will consider anything under 1x is sub optimal) so there's a narrow range that most people will agree. I'm sure you can find a couple in Italy in their 30's where once a month is fine but statistically they're not typical.


But these are averages. When I said there was a wide spectrum, what I meant was that there are some people who are happy with no sexual activity, and there are people who want it three times a day. That is, in my books, a pretty wide spectrum.

And it is not constant over time, either. My SO used to be a 2x a day guy, but now, not so much. I suppose I should get out my pitchfork and start accusing him of bait and switch?


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

AA,

Take someone with a low drive and things have to overall be 'good' for them to want to climb over the bar of responsive desire. 

Not perfect - that's a dishonest ploy by a partner who's being selfish. 

A low drive is inherently more fragile. Add in fatigue or distress and they actively avoid the idea of sex. 

After John goes through menopause he can explain how much that impacted his desire level. 






always_alone said:


> But these are averages. When I said there was a wide spectrum, what I meant was that there are some people who are happy with no sexual activity, and there are people who want it three times a day. That is, in my books, a pretty wide spectrum.
> 
> And it is not constant over time, either. My SO used to be a 2x a day guy, but now, not so much. I suppose I should get out my pitchfork and start accusing him of bait and switch?


----------



## ocotillo (Oct 17, 2011)

richardsharpe said:


> As far as I can tell, HD people really can't imagine what it is like to not want, or at least be happy with sex with their partners. Maybe they aren't really in the mood at the time, but it still seems like an easy thing to do to please someone you love.


I think you've hit the nail on the head.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Think statistics - the average is meaningless without an idea of the variance. Eventually you'll arrive at some numbers that are a close fit for 95% of a given population (culture, age, economics) 

The trick is what happens when you're in the 5% and your friendly LD tries to tell you that you're in the 95% for "your" group.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

john117 said:


> Think statistics - the average is meaningless without an idea of the variance. Eventually you'll arrive at some numbers that are a close fit for 95% of a given population (culture, age, economics)
> 
> The trick is what happens when you're in the 5% and your friendly LD tries to tell you that you're in the 95% for "your" group.


Yes, my SO does this too: makes up some statistics to declare his level of desire perfectly normal. This is not so hard to do convincingly given that 95% of the population probably fall somewhere between a few times a year and more than 4x a week.

The Kinsey Institute - Sexuality Information Links - FAQ [Related Resources]



> 13% of married couples reported having sex a few times per year, 45% reported a few times per month, 34% reported 2-3 times per week, and 7% reported 4 or more times per week (Laumann, Gagnon, Michael, Michaels, 1994).


That said, arguing statistics to get yourself in or out of bed is, IMHO, missing the point entirely. The only real response is "so?"


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Not so fast.

Kinsey's data is not grouped by culture - even within the USA I would guess that some cultures, be it religious based or ethnic based, have higher numbers than others. Also no consideration for things like overall state of marriage (good, bad, ugly) or economics.

Or, the real question, whether, in married or partnered people, the frequency is mutually arrived at or not. That's why Kinsey's numbers are rather meaningless. 

Take two couples - one super LD both and happy and one with one each LD and HD and NOT happy. Think of whether it's right or not to lump both in the same category.


----------



## T&T (Nov 16, 2012)

always_alone said:


> The only real response is "so?"


So?!? I like these stats! 

My wife and I are in the top 1% for our age group!! >

I'm sooo proud! I should call my Mother. :surprise:



Question, of all the people here complaining about lower drive partners, have any of you been situation LD? 

Grieving and didn't think about like sex?

Nursing a sick family member and didn't think about sex?

Depressed and didn't think about sex?

Ill child and didn't think about sex? 

Etc, etc...


----------



## anonmd (Oct 23, 2014)

T&T said:


> Question, of all the people here complaining about lower drive partners, have any of you been situation LD?
> 
> Grieving and didn't think about like sex?
> 
> ...


Yes, no, no and no. But if asked I would have rallied to the cause

Also, there was a Saturday morning a couple years ago, I woke up after a particularly good sleep and had an interesting thought - no sex would be ok today. 


90% of days involve no sex anyway but this particular day I was ok with it.


----------



## ocotillo (Oct 17, 2011)

T&T said:


> Question, of all the people here complaining about lower drive partners, have any of you been situation LD?


If age counts as a situation, then, yes. My wife has about 10x the drive that I do and wakes me up at one and two in the morning fairly often. Frankly, I would rather sleep.

You would think this would make it easier to understand the LD perspective (As it's presented here on TAM) but it doesn't.

There is something deeper to this divide. I wish I were smart enough to put my finger on it, but I can't.


----------



## T&T (Nov 16, 2012)

ocotillo said:


> If age counts as a situation, then, yes. My wife has about 10x the drive that I do and wakes me up at one and two in the morning fairly often. Frankly, I would rather sleep.
> 
> You would think this would make it easier to understand the LD perspective (As it's presented here on TAM) but it doesn't.
> 
> *There is something deeper to this divide. I wish I were smart enough to put my finger on it, but I can't.*


I agree and I can't either.

But, I would have to answer yes to all the questions I posted...Sex wasn't on my radar at all, given the situations. Another thing I just thought of, when my wife is ailing, recovering from an injury, etc my drive shuts off like a tap. Sometimes I wonder if it's just the way I'm wired. I immediately go into "caregiver mode" 

Anyone else?


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> As far as I can tell, HD people really can't imagine what it is like to not want, or at least be happy with sex with their partners.
> 
> *Sure they do. They don't want to go to the mall*.
> ...


Why is sex the only thing that these "rules" apply to?


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

ocotillo said:


> If age counts as a situation, then, yes. My wife has about 10x the drive that I do and wakes me up at one and two in the morning fairly often. Frankly, I would rather sleep.


I appreciate your ability to be the better man.

I don't know how you find the strength to not say "where were you for 29 years?". 

Has she ever apologized or shown empathy for what she put you through?


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

ocotillo said:


> If age counts as a situation, then, yes. My wife has about 10x the drive that I do and wakes me up at one and two in the morning fairly often. Frankly, I would rather sleep.
> 
> You would think this would make it easier to understand the LD perspective (As it's presented here on TAM) but it doesn't.


But you go along for her benefit. Because you love her and care about her. 

So, you don't understand people that wouldn't do the same.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

always_alone said:


> Or inspiration, seduction, enticement...


Have you tried those options with your SO?


----------



## ocotillo (Oct 17, 2011)

Buddy400 said:


> I appreciate your ability to be the better man.


I appreciate that, but don't see it in quite those terms. 

My wife would give you her last penny if she thought you were hungry. She's a much more generous and in many ways, a better person than I am.

Something is/was fundamentally different about her view of sex though. Maybe it was religious. Maybe it was social conditioning. Maybe it was biological. Maybe it was because I grew up in rural environment where sex is a day to day reality of raising livestock whereas for my wife, it was something mystical and magical presented on the silver screen.

I honestly don't know, but do see it mirrored here in many ways.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

ocotillo said:


> I appreciate that, but don't see it in quite those terms.
> 
> My wife would give you her last penny if she thought you were hungry. She's a much more generous and in many ways, a better person than I am.
> 
> ...


She's very intelligent and obviously capable of rational discussion.

It would be absolutely fascinating to have her input on all of this.

Have you ever talked about it? I'm guessing it's a taboo subject?


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
Yes I have - though just a couple of times in the last 30 years when my wife was interested in sex and I wasn't. I still didn't turn her down - because I know what that feels like. 

Of course my wanting sex may not feel to me anything like her not wanting sex feels to her.



T&T said:


> snip
> 
> Question, of all the people here complaining about lower drive partners, have any of you been situation LD?
> snip
> .


----------



## tropicaltess (Jul 25, 2015)

I've pretty much had a sexless marriage my entire, gulp, 21 year marriage. I got the old bait and switch. But, he managed to have sex with someone else. Go figure.


----------



## Icey181 (Apr 16, 2015)

Something my first Graduate Advisor (specialist on Early American Women's History and Political History) once said applies. [Paraphrasing here, because I take shoddy notes]

"The funny thing is no one had a problem with sex. Everyone had sex and lots of it. The main point was to have it happen between a husband and wife, so as not to produce children out of wedlock." - -This in reference to a question about sexual culture amongst single women in Upstate New York during the early 19th century.

Marriage is and always has been about three things:
1) Legitimacy of Sexual Relationships
1a) Legitimacy of Off-Spring
2) Clear lines of property succession within families (only matter for upper classes)


----------



## aine (Feb 15, 2014)

Personal said:


> Exactly! Absent that desire one ought not to be married to the person they have no desire for. Or alternatively the witholder should be perfectly happy with their spouse bringing home a parade of men and or woman in order to satiate their normal human desires.


You miss the point completely, if a wife has worked all day, then come home been doing housework, helping kids with homework, making dinner etc she may literally be so exhausted that she has no desire for sex but more desire for sleep. There are huge differences between a woman and man's physiological and psychological makeup which result in differences in sexual desire and arousal. For women as they get older there are other factors such as hormones, cognitive factors, etc that have a dampening affect on this area. To assume they do not exist is mere ignorance.
Men on the other hand usually have a fairly consistent response in this area from young to old (though some men do have mid life ED issues, etc). Further, men are very much visual beings, a bit of flesh and they can stand to attention from 0-3 seconds. It doesn't work like that for a woman.

Therefore you cannot simply say, if you are married you must desire the person sexually otherwise you shouldn't be married. You are being reductionist and simplifying an incredibly complex area.:|


----------



## tommyr (May 25, 2014)

WandaJ said:


> I am not LD, but I can not just imagine having sex when I am completely not into it. I think it would build resentment in me, instead of feeling of closeness.



ND here (==normal desire).

It's fine to not want sex.
It's fine that if you don't want sex, you should not HAVE sex.
But... it is NOT FINE to refuse sex while also expecting to stay married to a faithful partner.


----------



## aine (Feb 15, 2014)

Personal said:


> Actually I miss nothing at all, since marriage at a minimum is characterised as providing the obligation and demand-right of sexual access. See below or alternatively go here for my previous post.
> 
> Bell, Duran, Defining Marriage and Legitimacy, Current Anthropology Volume 38, Number 2, The Werner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research, 1997.
> 
> ...


So, if you reduce marriage to a functional process based on laws, obligations, regulations etc etc, then I am not surprised if you are not getting any


----------



## tommyr (May 25, 2014)

always_alone said:


> I just don't think it's so black and white. If you are compatible (both LD), why not get married? If you are HD, why not stay with someone that you have a deep emotional connection with, even if the sex isn't all you dreamed it would be?



If you are LD and otherwise compatible, why not get married but allow your non-LD partner to have sex with others? Since sex isn't important to the marriage, what is wrong with that?



always_alone said:


> Obviously we all have our needs and deal-breakers, and we have to be true to these. But a blanket "no LD deserves to participate in marriage" is much too harsh, IMHO, and puts *all* blame and responsibility on the LD, when in fact it may be the HD that is the real source of the problem.


Of course LD deserves to get married. And anybody who knowingly marries somebody who is not much into sex should not complain later on about not getting alot of sex. Often however the LD is willing to show alot more sexual desire to attract a spouse and solicit a marriage proposal. This is a serious problem agreed? And I think this is what the thread is about.



always_alone said:


> If I am turning off my SO to the point that he doesn't want me anymore, that is *my* failing is it not?


Ok I see the loss of desire is caused by actions that "turn off" one partner. Yes this can happen, and yes this partner is "failing" and should change. But instead of refusing sex, the other partner must clearly communicate exactly what is such a "turn off" thereby allowing the offensive spouse to make the necessary adjustments.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Personal said:


> Since most people are very sexual and marriage is a mechanism for allocating sexual services for the maintenance of social order. It is foolish to baulk at the suggestion that those who are not sexual (for their own wellbeing) ought not to marry, when marriage is about "allocating conjugal services". If one is horrified at having to reciprocally proffer sexual access, marriage by it's very purpose and definition is evidently not an ideal method of cohabitation for them.
> 
> On the other hand if marriage is all things except a sexual obligation, it is then all things except marriage.


What I am most horrified by is that you actually want to stand behind these definitions of marriage. "Demand right of access **for men**"? 

I can't argue that historically marriage was about subjugating women's sexuality to men's, about controlling who she slept with so that paternity could be established definitively, but I am certainly not going to defend this as the core of what marriage really means to individuals proclaiming their vows, or that because of this, we can be sure that LD are some sort of blameworthy scourge.

Indeed, I think those quotes might be enough to turn me both LD and anti-marriage on the spot.

You are absolutely right that conjugal relations are not romance. Or love. But you don't need marriage to "allocate" sexual relations, and "conjugal" isn't necessarily about frequency of sex. 

Did you know that some cultures believe that too much sex is bad for you because it depletes your vital spirit? They say you shouldn't have it more than a couple of times a month.


----------



## *LittleDeer* (Apr 19, 2012)

Personal said:


> Actually I miss nothing at all, since marriage at a minimum is characterised as providing the obligation and demand-right of sexual access. See below or alternatively go here for my previous post.
> 
> 
> > . However, in order for "marriage" to be marriage, it is both necessary and sufficient that it contains the rights-obligation linkage that defines husband-wife. Marriage is a relationship between one or more men (male or female) in severalty to one or more women that provides those men with the demand-right of sexual access within a domestic group and identifies women who bear the obligation of yielding to the demand of those specific men.
> ...


Oh obligation sex, now that's sexy. NOT

Your argument stems from an anthropologist? 

I think you will find greater success in behaving like a true partner in a marriage, doing your fair share without being nagged (but no more unless she is ill etc), noticing her, paying true attention to her and making her feel sexy and alive. Being fun! Standing up for her and your marriage etc That's whats sexy! 

Quoting some anthropology schmanthropology bla bla obligation bla bla. Will make most women either laugh or eye roll and neither in a good way.


----------



## woundedwarrior (Dec 9, 2011)

This thread is starting to crack me up. Bringing history, science etc into the equation. It still is very simple, when a spouse loses sexual desire for their partner, the sex will fade away. If the desire is still there and you are in love with each other, you will always want to make time for intimacy.
I don't buy the whole men should have access, who wants "duty sex", been there, done that, no thanks.

We went to a marriage encounter weekend 5 years a go and during the "sex and intimacy" session, the speaker basically said that if you are too tired or too busy to have sex with your spouse, then you are doing too much and need to get your priorities straight and if you don't want your marriage to be #1, then it will die off.

I'm still holding to the basic fact that when your marriage becomes sexless, it's because your spouse just isn't into you physically anymore. It's a matter of desire and passion and when it goes, you become good friends, whether you want to admit it or not, I lived in denial for years, but it is what it is.

I used to use the LD tag for her, just to make me feel better, but it's a fallacy. She's LD because the marriage isn't that important anymore, not because she has some medical or hormonal condition. It's called "not in love" with you anymore. It may not be personal, like I believe with my situation, my wife just chose at some point to take the focus off of us and put us on "autopilot" while she put her efforts on other things, mostly our now 4 year old granddaughter.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Personal said:


> The term "men" in that definition is a descriptor that is universally applied to man as in male and female humans.


Sadly it doesn't. The quote you cited clearly distinguishes between men and women, and to pretend otherwise is pure anachronism. Here it is again, relevant parts in bold: 



> However, in order for "marriage" to be marriage, it is both necessary and sufficient that it contains the rights-obligation linkage that defines husband-wife. Marriage is a relationship between one or more men (male or female) in severalty to one or more *women that provides those men with the demand-right of sexual access* within a domestic group and identifies *women who bear the obligation of yielding to the demand of those specific men*.


Very clearly it states that men have the right to demand, and women have the obligation to yield. And yes, this worldview was a central part of certain traditions in marriage. 

You say that you are not swayed by religious or spiritual arguments, but I'm afraid the attitudes that you are drawing from here are very much embedded in certain religious and spiritual philosophies -- as much as any other.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

*LittleDeer* said:


> Oh obligation sex, now that's sexy. NOT
> 
> Your argument stems from an anthropologist?


Not just obligation sex, but "right of demand access" which clearly hearkens back to holdingontoit's earlier point that discussing frequency was completely moot in a world when there is no such thing as marital rape.

However, if you read the article that he posted, you will see that the definitions he pulled from it are on the dated side, and the author explicitly points out that sex isn't necessarily the most important part of marriage cross-culturally. It is just a useful distinguishing feature for cross-cultural comparisons, to better classify different types of relationships.


----------



## ocotillo (Oct 17, 2011)

aine said:


> So, if you reduce marriage to a functional process based on laws, obligations, regulations etc etc, then I am not surprised if you are not getting any


Your perspective here is not wrong, aine.

I do think it illustrates the divide that exists on this subject, which is why I keep falling back on rules based vs. outcome based models to try to explain it it a way that's charitable to everyone.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Personal said:


> Ironically you ignore the text that says " one or more men (male or female)".


Ummm, but note that the author also says:

"Wife," like several other categories such as "parent," is defined not by rights unique to it but by unique obligations to others."



Personal said:


> My argument is very simple, sex is the only universal component of marriage. That being the case, a relationship without sex is a relationship that does not have the only universal marriage component.


And also says: 
"The sexual-access right that identifies the marital tie may not be culturally defined as the most important aspect of "marriage" in a given society, but we are not concerned with the salience of given rights within the institution."

"We have seen that marriage is commonly exploited by dominants within the social system for purposes other than the provision of sexual access ...."

So, while sex certainly does figure into our definition of marriage, it isn't necessarily the most important thing, nor are there any indications whatsoever of needed frequency for LD -- which is actually what started this tangent in the first place.


----------



## ocotillo (Oct 17, 2011)

*LittleDeer* said:


> Oh obligation sex, now that's sexy. NOT


I agree with you that it's horribly unromantic to express things in quasi-legal terms. As you observe, it will make most women either laugh or eye roll and neither in a good way.

Are you sure you understand how HD people get to that point though?

There is a tendency on TAM to deliver back-handed insults to people in this position. "If you were stoic and unemotional like my husband; If you were a sex god like my husband; If you were funny and entertaining like my husband...." goes the argument, "...you would not be in this position."

That's putting the cart before the horse though. The problem is that threshold for sex has gradually gotten set so high that the HD person start to question the basic premises behind marriage itself. Do we owe our spouses anything at all?

Personally, I think the truth lies somewhere between the two extremes. We do owe our spouses more than we would owe a stranger in a bar, but that should not be construed as _carte blanche._ Where's the fun in that?


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

AA,

So here's how this typically worked: 

For a guy who didn't particularly care how his wife felt about him, generally speaking he could have sex with her whenever he wanted because:
- It wasn't illegal 
- He had the size, strength to take what he wanted by force

Out of ALL the male/female pairings where I know both members of the couple, there isn't a single one where the female is strong enough to force the male partner. 

So there's nothing equitable about an environment where marital rape is legal. 




always_alone said:


> Not just obligation sex, but "right of demand access" which clearly hearkens back to holdingontoit's earlier point that discussing frequency was completely moot in a world when there is no such thing as marital rape.
> 
> However, if you read the article that he posted, you will see that the definitions he pulled from it are on the dated side, and the author explicitly points out that sex isn't necessarily the most important part of marriage cross-culturally. It is just a useful distinguishing feature for cross-cultural comparisons, to better classify different types of relationships.


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
HD and ND people have a very difficult time imagining that someone would turn down sex with a loving, romantic, caring partner. They tend to assume that if someone is turning down sex, there must be something "wrong" with the partner.

True LD people have a very difficult time imagining that their partners want sex / intimacy / love, and instead may see them as wanting the simple mechanical act. 

Some HDs are so desperate that they think they can accept just the mechanical act - but I think that in most cases they realize that is not really what they wanted in the first place.






ocotillo said:


> I agree with you that it's horribly unromantic to express things in quasi-legal terms. As you observe, it will make most women either laugh or eye roll and neither in a good way.
> 
> Are you sure you understand how HD people get to that point though?
> 
> ...


----------



## seahorse (Apr 10, 2010)

Lost belief sexual intimacy could ever be worth the pain and struggle. So I gave up. Still hurts though


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

ocotillo said:


> ...If you were a sex god like my husband...


Hey!


----------



## woundedwarrior (Dec 9, 2011)

I think you covered all your bases, and well done, I'm happy for you two. When two people get it right, like it was intended for, it's awesome!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Please, Personal, do not take my arguments with you here as implying that I think you are advocating marital rape, or are in any way a poor partner.

I have always liked your posts, and found you to be reasonable, often wise, kind, fair, even generous. I believe you treat your wife well, I believe you consistently advocate for treating people well.

My apologies if I have given the impression that I am thinking otherwise.

My arguments with you on this thread are really just because I think the way you are putting forward the "normal" marriage and centrality of sex is too strong, and my goal only to soften the tone. I get what you are saying, I think, but find the situation more complicated, more nuanced, in a way where it is more helpful to talk about clear communication about expectations, than to emphasize duty or sexual obligation. 

And, when it comes to historical attitudes about marriage being about men's demand right of access, well, it just strikes me as wrong to rely on these to justify the importance of sex in marriage. Just because someone can take what they want doesn't mean that they should have that right, or that it is what makes marriage what it is.

I'm not explaining this well, but hopefully you know what I mean.

Peace.


----------



## woundedwarrior (Dec 9, 2011)

I agree with obligation in a marriage, in that each partner needs to do whatever it takes to keep the marriage strong, afloat and passionate. Once one partner chooses to let that go and allow the marriage to fall, then all other obligations, sexual or otherwise are mute.

I can't speak for all men, but for me, if the desire and passion aren't there, then sex is extremely unfulfilling. If it's just a physical release that is needed, there are easier ways to obtain it than forcing yourself or guilting on an unwilling partner and who would want to??

You can post on the wall a list of ground rules and make your spouse abide by them, but if they no longer want to, for whatever reason, why bother???


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

ocotillo said:


> I agree with you that it's horribly unromantic to express things in quasi-legal terms. As you observe, it will make most women either laugh or eye roll and neither in a good way.
> 
> Are you sure you understand how HD people get to that point though?
> 
> There is a tendency on TAM to deliver back-handed insults to people in this position. "If you were stoic and unemotional like my husband; If you were a sex god like my husband; If you were funny and entertaining like my husband...." goes the argument, "...you would not be in this position."


People get married for a lot of reasons. Love and passion is not always one of them. I think people make a lot of assumptions about what "marriage" is that their partner may not share. People get "married" often more than they marry THAT OTHER PERSON.

If a person rocked the other person's world, then their world would be rocked. If the person you married married you because they value sexuality in marriage, then they would so value. But if not, not.

So what do people do? Expect. Attempt to force change on the person they married when they married the wrong person. It Just Does Not Work.





> That's putting the cart before the horse though. The problem is that threshold for sex has gradually gotten set so high that the HD person start to question the basic premises behind marriage itself. Do we owe our spouses anything at all?


No, I don't think so. I don't owe my husband anything, and he sure as heck does not owe me anything. We WANT to be together, to be close to each other. This desire, stemming as it does from loving each other and wanting to build a happy life together, is what motivates any changes necessary to meet the other person's needs. In the absence of that desire, what would motivate change? Guilt? Debt or owing? Nobody can remain motivated by those things for long.




> Personally, I think the truth lies somewhere between the two extremes. We do owe our spouses more than we would owe a stranger in a bar, but that should not be construed as _carte blanche._ Where's the fun in that?


----------



## ocotillo (Oct 17, 2011)

Personal said:


> Shame on all of you who have implied inferred or suggested that I am arguing for the practice of marital rape, or have implied inferred or suggested that I am not fit for loving relationships by concurring with or offering me presumptive, patronising and misplaced relationship advice!



I haven't said or implied anything about you or your marriage, Personal. You seem to be a decent fellow who (Like me) is here more for the human interest than for any specific problem in their marriage at the moment. Even were that not the case, I'd have no problem telling you straight up if I thought you were wrong.

I've seen thread after thread after thread between HD and LD become unproductive and eventually devolve into hurt feelings and in an effort to avoid that, I've proposed a more charitable way to look at the divide between the two parties (On a thread that you participated on..)



ocotillo said:


> There are two basic approaches to fairness in human interactions. One is based on rules; the other is based on outcome. Both approaches have their good points and bad points. Which one is best is a philosophical debate as old as the human race itself because both have caused serious miscarriages of justice. (I can give examples)
> 
> Sex in marriage is one area where the two approaches often seem to be at loggerheads. I don't think think this is _automatically_ a gender issue, but it does seem to me that men (As a group) tend to lean towards rules based approaches while women (Again as a group) tend to be outcome based in their outlook.
> 
> ...



My comments to aine and LittleDeer were said in the same oil on the water spirit and not directed at you.


----------



## woundedwarrior (Dec 9, 2011)

NobodySpecial said:


> People get married for a lot of reasons. Love and passion is not always one of them. I think people make a lot of assumptions about what "marriage" is that their partner may not share. People get "married" often more than they marry THAT OTHER PERSON.
> 
> If a person rocked the other person's world, then their world would be rocked. If the person you married married you because they value sexuality in marriage, then they would so value. But if not, not.
> 
> ...


Excellent points and I think it's fair to sum up sexless marriages now as a spouse's lack of WANTING TO. The excuses or reasons are meaningless. If you both WANT TO then you BOTH WILL!!!


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

woundedwarrior said:


> Excellent points and I think it's fair to sum up sexless marriages now as a spouse's lack of WANTING TO. The *excuses *or reasons are meaningless. If you both WANT TO then you BOTH WILL!!!


If you see them as "excuses" then you don't see it as a matter of want. I don't make excuses for things I want to do.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

I think what's missing is a conversation about accountability.

When my wife agreed to have an exclusive sexual relationship with me, I then _had to take a lot of accountability for her sexual fulfillment._ That's what being monogamous means, right? If the other person agrees to not have sex with anyone else, it's kind of all on you to help them have a fulfilled sexual life.

And vice versa.

Now, if you want exclusivity without accountability, that becomes a problem.

Just like it becomes a problem if you don't take accountability to keep doing the things that made them want to be monogamous with you to begin with, and not do the things that will make them not want to.

For me, it's about accountability.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

ocotillo said:


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


IMHO, it is not the sexual nature that makes it objectionable, it's the obligation piece. There is never anything wrong with doing something nice. But the obligation to be buying presents or doling out bjs takes the "nice" right out of it, and turns it into a transaction.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

This has always been my 'go to' position.

The commitment to monogamy is just as much a responsibility as a commitment. 

But having read tens of thousands of posts on this topic, I have slowly come round to this conclusion. 

Your spouse isn't obligated to have sex with you, nor you them. They are however obligated to tell you the truth. And you them. 

Because the common themes in sexless marriages are remarkably similar to those in marriages where there is infidelity:
- Betrayal of trust
- Open ended and self serving deception
- Cake eating 



QUOTE=marduk;13309866]I think what's missing is a conversation about accountability.

When my wife agreed to have an exclusive sexual relationship with me, I then _had to take a lot of accountability for her sexual fulfillment._ That's what being monogamous means, right? If the other person agrees to not have sex with anyone else, it's kind of all on you to help them have a fulfilled sexual life.

And vice versa.

Now, if you want exclusivity without accountability, that becomes a problem.

Just like it becomes a problem if you don't take accountability to keep doing the things that made them want to be monogamous with you to begin with, and not do the things that will make them not want to.

For me, it's about accountability.[/QUOTE]


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

marduk said:


> I think what's missing is a conversation about accountability.
> 
> When my wife agreed to have an exclusive sexual relationship with me, I then _had to take a lot of accountability for her sexual fulfillment._ That's what being monogamous means, right? If the other person agrees to not have sex with anyone else, it's kind of all on you to help them have a fulfilled sexual life.
> 
> ...


I can see one holding oneself accountable though I think that is a depressing way to view marriage. But what does one do when another does not hold themselves so? It does not strike me as a very useful central point.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

MEM11363 said:


> This has always been my 'go to' position.
> 
> The commitment to monogamy is just as much a responsibility as a commitment.
> 
> ...



Who took MEM and replaced him with his evil twin? 

I TOTALLY disagree with this. The common theme for MEN WHO AREN'T GETTING THE SEX THEY WANT may be those things/. But I think they are misunderstanding the actual root cause. Differing marital and sexual expectation especially around feelings.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

NobodySpecial said:


> I can see one holding oneself accountable though I think that is a depressing way to view marriage. But what does one do when another does not hold themselves so? It does not strike me as a very useful central point.


It is depressing to hold yourself accountable to those you love?

Do I find it depressing to be held accountable to keep a roof over my children's head and food on the table? No, I relish it, and am proud and happy to provide. It is an expression of love, and an expression of who I am.

When the other person isn't taking accountability, it needs to be called out, understood, and worked on. If not... there needs to be consequences to a lack of accountability.

Just like, you know, the real world. If I don't do my job at work, I get fired. If I don't clean the house, it gets dirty. If I don't put gas in the car, it stops working.

If I stop loving my wife, she will leave to love someone else.

These are all natural outcomes for my decisions.

But, as MEM articulated well, our #1 accountability is to the truth, and expressing that truth honestly.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

marduk said:


> It is depressing to hold yourself accountable to those you love?


Yes. 

Do I find it depressing to be held accountable to keep a roof over my children's head and food on the table? No, I relish it, and am proud and happy to provide. It is an expression of love, and an expression of who I am.

When the other person isn't taking accountability, it needs to be called out, understood, and worked on. If not... there needs to be consequences to a lack of accountability.

Just like, you know, the real world. If I don't do my job at work, I get fired. If I don't clean the house, it gets dirty. If I don't put gas in the car, it stops working.

If I stop loving my wife, she will leave to love someone else.

These are all natural outcomes for my decisions.

But, as MEM articulated well, our #1 accountability is to the truth, and expressing that truth honestly.[/QUOTE]

I don't have to "hold myself accountable" as life does it for me. I don't have to "hold myself accountable to the one I love" because I LOVE them.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

NobodySpecial said:


> I don't have to "hold myself accountable" as life does it for me. I don't have to "hold myself accountable to the one I love" because I LOVE them.


OK, maybe you're the guy to which this comes naturally.

I'm the guy that acts one way while dating, and becomes a nice guy in LTRs.

And the nice guy takes his kicks and does what he is told and needs to be reminded every once in a while to do what is needed instead of what is easy.

Because the nice guy, while working hard, is really a lazy guy. And I can be very lazy.

I'm glad you're not that guy.

For me, reminding myself for what I'm accountable for keeps me on the path.


----------



## tornado (Jan 10, 2014)

When you marry someone it is your obligation to fulfill that's persons sexual,emotional, physical, mental needs. If you are unwilling to do so then you shouldn't marry them.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

marduk said:


> OK, maybe you're the guy to which this comes naturally.
> 
> I'm the guy that acts one way while dating, and becomes a nice guy in LTRs.


Which one is actually you?



> And the nice guy takes his kicks and does what he is told and needs to be reminded every once in a while to do what is needed instead of what is easy.


That is not a nice guy thing. That is not even a Nice Guy thing. That is a bad guy thing. Sorry.




> Because the nice guy, while working hard, is really a lazy guy. And I can be very lazy.
> 
> I'm glad you're not that guy.


I am not a guy. Does that make a difference?


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Regarding male and female attitudes about "having sex if you don't want to" as "oil" and "water", I think that we're kind of in a bubble here.

I've read articles / blogs on women's sites (including jezebel) talking about how a woman should never have sex unless she is in the mood. Invariably many (if not most) of the women who comment will say that they are more than happy to have sex with their partner when they are not in the mood because they love him, they care about his happiness and they know that they will most likely end up *being* in the mood. They'll call the writer's attitude selfish and damaging to a relationship. 

There was a book written by three women about "Babyproofing" your marriage that pointed out to potential mothers that, while they might lose their libido for a while, their husbands wouldn't. One of the authors solutions was to give her husband a blowjob every Friday night. Oh, the outrage! But this was just some of the response. There were lots of women who thought this was a perfectly fine idea.

So I'd guess that at least 50% of the women aren't "oil".

So, I'd recommend that men bring up a topic like this prior to getting married.


----------



## ocotillo (Oct 17, 2011)

NobodySpecial said:


> No, I don't think so. I don't owe my husband anything, and he sure as heck does not owe me anything.





NobodySpecial said:


> If I stop loving my wife, she will leave to love someone else. These are all natural outcomes for my decisions.


I'm confused. --In more ways than one, too.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

ocotillo said:


> I'm confused. --In more ways than one, too.


The latter one is a quote fail on my part.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Somebody,

Let's categorize the participants in these situations by patterns of behavior. 

I'll start with the folks I feel sorriest for. These are the people who actually believed there was a mutually strong sexual connection because:
- they'd always made it clear - well before getting engaged - that this part of the puzzle was important to them
- frequency was good up until they had their final child at which case it basically stopped

The closer the pattern looks to that, the more predatory the situation looks to me. 

That said, I've written a lot of stuff on this topic so it's best to mention a few caveats here. 

If your partner is only tolerating sex, that's not sustainable long term. And pushing a high frequency on someone who clearly wishes you weren't, flips the script on who's predatory. 

Sadly I've seen many posts on here about HD folks who continue to push sex despite explicit messages their partner doesn't want it: starfish sex, won't kiss you, doesn't come, says hurry up and finish, can't wait to get away from you right after.

Obviously their spouses eventually conclude the HD partner views sex as something they do 'to' someone, not with someone.



QUOTE=NobodySpecial;13308882]People get married for a lot of reasons. Love and passion is not always one of them. I think people make a lot of assumptions about what "marriage" is that their partner may not share. People get "married" often more than they marry THAT OTHER PERSON.

If a person rocked the other person's world, then their world would be rocked. If the person you married married you because they value sexuality in marriage, then they would so value. But if not, not.

So what do people do? Expect. Attempt to force change on the person they married when they married the wrong person. It Just Does Not Work.





No, I don't think so. I don't owe my husband anything, and he sure as heck does not owe me anything. We WANT to be together, to be close to each other. This desire, stemming as it does from loving each other and wanting to build a happy life together, is what motivates any changes necessary to meet the other person's needs. In the absence of that desire, what would motivate change? Guilt? Debt or owing? Nobody can remain motivated by those things for long.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

NobodySpecial said:


> Which one is actually you?


Neither of them are. They are aspects that I choose to employ, consciously or not. 


> That is not a nice guy thing. That is not even a Nice Guy thing. That is a bad guy thing. Sorry.


I agree. That is the trap, no? 



> I am not a guy. Does that make a difference?


In what sense?

I am talking about accountability. Women have equal abilities to be accountable or not. Depending on what they value.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

marduk said:


> Neither of them are. They are aspects that I choose to employ, consciously or not.


How can you choose something any way other than consciously? If it is not conscious, it is not a choice.



> I agree. That is the trap, no?


No. Presumably people want to be better people for themselves. No trap there.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

NobodySpecial said:


> How can you choose something any way other than consciously? If it is not conscious, it is not a choice.


We all have compultions. 

I'd rather sit on the couch with Doritos watching old doctor who re-runs than going trail running after a hard days work. 

This doesn't mean that this is me. 

I'd rather make my wife happy than not. But subconsciously this may be a cop-out to actually making both of us happy long term rather than her happy in the moment. 

This doesn't mean that this is me, either. 


> No. Presumably people want to be better people for themselves. No trap there.


The trap is "happy wife, happy life."

I'd assume the female equivalent would be something along similar lines.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

marduk said:


> We all have compultions.
> 
> I'd rather sit on the couch with Doritos watching old doctor who re-runs than going trail running after a hard days work.
> 
> ...


Yah it does.



> The trap is "happy wife, happy life."


The trap is thinking that being a door mat is actually ever going to make anyone happy.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

I disagree with your first statement and agree with the second.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## tornado (Jan 10, 2014)

MEM11363 said:


> Somebody,
> 
> Let's categorize the participants in these situations by patterns of behavior.
> 
> ...


[/QUOTE]





So how many people on here have gotten the "hurry up" during sexual activity?

I'll raise my hand.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## woundedwarrior (Dec 9, 2011)

NobodySpecial said:


> If you see them as "excuses" then you don't see it as a matter of want. I don't make excuses for things I want to do.


I was making it a generalization, I don't see it that way, but a lot of spouses use excuses to cover up their lack of desire. I fully believe it's all about the WANT.


----------



## woundedwarrior (Dec 9, 2011)

So how many people on here have gotten the "hurry up" during sexual activity?

I'll raise my hand.
_Posted via Mobile Device_[/QUOTE]

ME and I lost count.........


----------



## ocotillo (Oct 17, 2011)

NobodySpecial said:


> No, I don't think so. I don't owe my husband anything, and he sure as heck does not owe me anything. We WANT to be together, to be close to each other.





NobodySpecial said:


> Do I find it depressing to be held accountable to keep a roof over my children's head and food on the table? No, I relish it, and am proud and happy to provide. It is an expression of love, and an expression of who I am.
> 
> I don't have to "hold myself accountable to the one I love" because I LOVE them.


I don't mean this disrespectfully, because your view is every bit as valid as mine.

Your comments remind me of bartering systems among indigenous peoples where the idea of formal exchange is regarded as crass. Items of value are instead presented as "gifts" and it's only "coincidence" that the gifts cancel each other out so that neither party feels that they were taken advantage of.

And I don't necessarily disagree with this. All of us as parents know that if we do not provide adequately for our children, they will be taken away from us and we will be prosecuted and in extreme cases of neglect, possibly even imprisoned.

But who of us even thinks about it in those terms? Taking the best possible care of our children is what we would want to do anyway.


----------



## Fozzy (Jul 20, 2013)

ocotillo said:


> Your comments remind me of bartering systems among indigenous peoples where the idea of formal exchange is regarded as crass. Items of value are instead presented as "gifts" and it's only "coincidence" that the gifts cancel each other out so that neither party feels that they were taken advantage of.


Just like in Dances With Wolves!


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

ocotillo said:


> I don't mean this disrespectfully, because your view is every bit as valid as mine.
> 
> Your comments remind me of bartering systems among indigenous peoples where the idea of formal exchange is regarded as crass. Items of value are instead presented as "gifts" and it's only "coincidence" that the gifts cancel each other out so that neither party feels that they were taken advantage of.
> 
> ...


Like. A LOT!


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

ocotillo said:


> I don't mean this disrespectfully, because your view is every bit as valid as mine.
> 
> Your comments remind me of bartering systems among indigenous peoples where the idea of formal exchange is regarded as crass. Items of value are instead presented as "gifts" and it's only "coincidence" that the gifts cancel each other out so that neither party feels that they were taken advantage of.


I am not sure if I understand you because what you are talking about is precisely the opposite of what I am. I think gifts are fabulous and give them often without regard to repayment. It is a happy thing to do because the recipient needs or can enjoy them.

The accountability discussion leaves out being genuinely motivated by the joy and growth of the person one claims to love. Is it my duty to love and care for my kids? Sure. But that is so much less fun than doing it with a heart full of wonder at how they respond. Marriage is no different. I love making my husband happy. When he is happy, and I was able to be part of that, that brings me satisfaction of a life well lived.



> And I don't necessarily disagree with this. All of us as parents know that if we do not provide adequately for our children, they will be taken away from us and we will be prosecuted and in extreme cases of neglect, possibly even imprisoned.
> 
> But who of us even thinks about it in those terms? Taking the best possible care of our children is what we would want to do anyway.


----------



## ocotillo (Oct 17, 2011)

NobodySpecial said:


> I am not sure if I understand you because what you are talking about is precisely the opposite of what I am.


Yes. Exactly. 

We're talking about two sides of a philosophical debate as old as the human race itself.

In the _Ketuvim_, a dispute arises between God and the devil over whether Job serves the former purely out of love or purely to be rewarded. 

In the NT, St. Paul and St. James exchange barbs over whether faith follows from works or works follow from faith.

When it comes to friendship, Hubbard observed: “In order to have friends, you must first be one.” On the flip side of the coin, Seneca observed: “He who begins to be your friend because it pays will also cease because it pays.” 

So which is it? Are relationships purely altruistic or purely selfish? I propose that the truth lies somewhere between the two extremes. 

When we do that which we would have done anyway, obligations aren't a problem We don't even think about them. When we care for our children, for example, the fact that this is what the law requires doesn't even enter into our thinking. 
Obligations only become a problem if for one reason or the other, they become a constraint.


----------



## Centurions (Jan 31, 2013)

Personal said:


> Yes lets not forget children which are normally created through having sex!
> 
> That said, historically, inclusive of property, money and politics, sex has always played a significant role even when marriage is for the before mentioned reasons.
> 
> ...


Greetings

Just outstanding! Imposing celibacy upon a spouse is monstrous!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Centurions said:


> Greetings
> 
> Just outstanding! Imposing celibacy upon a spouse is monstrous!
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


The problem usually arises when one spouse says "I won't have sex with you" and adds to that "and neither can you have sex with anyone else."

Well, that's not the real problem, I guess.

The real problem is having that said to you, and not saying "no deal." Because it's clearly an unreasonable expectation.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Perhaps it would be better if our terminology was different. 

We currently say: my partner is LD
Perhaps it's better to first say: I'm in an LD relationship 

For folks who started out with a HD relationship it's best to ask: what happened?

The most common thing that happened, is stability. It's what a good marriage is predicated on. But it's inherently unfriendly to passion. 

And for many folks, it doesn't need to kill passion, just reduce it enough to push them into a mode where the lower desire partner is in 'responsive desire' mode. 

If I were teaching a marriage class, the sexual part would be focused on THIS. On making a successful transition to working with responsive desire. 

Especially because this transition works against our natural tendencies. 

Think about it, as frequency drops, sexual encounters become MORE intense for the HD spouse. They are hungry, maybe starving. They are in 'rip off his/her clothes and get to it' mode. 

This is exactly the worst thing to do to someone with responsive desire. It truly is like when the puppy dog is humping your leg. Awkward, uncomfortable, distasteful. 

If you don't sort that out properly, you are now in a situation where sex feels BAD for the responsive desire partner. And bad sex, like bad food, is viscerally bad. 




marduk said:


> The problem usually arises when one spouse says "I won't have sex with you" and adds to that "and neither can you have sex with anyone else."
> 
> Well, that's not the real problem, I guess.
> 
> The real problem is having that said to you, and not saying "no deal." Because it's clearly an unreasonable expectation.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

MEM11363 said:


> Perhaps it would be better if our terminology was different.
> 
> We currently say: my partner is LD
> Perhaps it's better to first say: I'm in an LD relationship
> ...


I would categorize it slightly differently than this. Instead of "stability" I would call it complacency. From complacency comes unmet needs. From unmet needs comes resentment.



> And for many folks, it doesn't need to kill passion, just reduce it enough to push them into a mode where the lower desire partner is in 'responsive desire' mode.
> 
> If I were teaching a marriage class, the sexual part would be focused on THIS. On making a successful transition to working with responsive desire.
> 
> ...


All of that for people who categorize as stable vs complacent.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Marduk,

I agree that it's a bad idea to roll over. And that conversations about a sexual disconnect are especially difficult. 

Unfortunately that difficulty causes folks to avoid saying anything until they are very upset. 

I won't speak for the masses, but when I'm very upset I tend to focus on me and my needs. That frames this as a power struggle and not a collaboration. 

I do believe that it's ok to apply the - 'I won't be celibate' - type pressure described below as a last resort. 

But not as a strategy for forcing a frequency. Rather as a means of restarting your sex life with the focus being on making it good for your lower drove partner. 

So that sort of looks more like this: I want to try to reboot that part of the marriage. It won't work without you giving me honest feedback. So I need you to make the leap of faith that I'll respond positively to raw, unfiltered communication about what's working and not working for you. 

Because I really don't want you to end up 'biting the pillow' just to keep me around....





QUOTE=marduk;13342162]The problem usually arises when one spouse says "I won't have sex with you" and adds to that "and neither can you have sex with anyone else."

Well, that's not the real problem, I guess.

The real problem is having that said to you, and not saying "no deal." Because it's clearly an unreasonable expectation.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

I agree 100% with what you're saying MEM.

The point I'm trying to get across is that accountability and reasonableness must be kept as part of the relationship foundation to begin with.

Once I start to white knight her and take away reasonableness, we fall down a very deep well of suck. 

I mean, if you think about it long enough, asking someone to not have sex for the rest of their life just because you don't want to, isn't really love.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Marduk,

That's absolutely true. And there's a world of difference between trying to 'make' someone happy, and facilitating their pursuit of happiness. 

Funny story. 

After the constitution was enacted many, many Americans read it. And proceeded to bitterly deluge the framers with complaints about how they were 'unhappy' and wanted to know what the government was going to do for them. 

Their response was: We are only responsible for providing an environment that enables the pursuit of happiness, it's up to each citizen to find it. 





marduk said:


> I agree 100% with what you're saying MEM.
> 
> The point I'm trying to get across is that accountability and reasonableness must be kept as part of the relationship foundation to begin with.
> 
> ...


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

It's always why I find it fascinating to try to understand the LD folks. I mean, the ones who's spouses are actively turning off, I get. The ones that have a medical condition or are just LD I get.

But I don't get why the ones that are being turned off aren't open about that, and I don't get why the ones with long term medical issues or are just LD don't have a different conversation with their HD spouses.

One based on meeting both their needs, or agreeing not to be monogamous any more.

Especially when they pretended to be HD at the beginning of the relationship, and expected their spouse to back off about sex when they were married long enough.

It's like pretending to be a millionaire and then disclosing the fact that you're penniless 3 years into the marriage.


----------



## BeachGuy (Jul 6, 2011)

To stop having sex with your spouse just because you don't care for it anymore is plain mean in my book. I had it done to me big time. It's completely ruined our relationship and torn apart our family. And she could care less.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

The concept of cake eating is not new. But it is part of a trifecta of social and cultural norms that make it's impact MUCH higher...

- social norms to marry quickly and avoid living together 
- legal norms that are way too LD friendly 
- cultural norms about sex in general esp how women are to remain "pure" lolz vs objectifying them...


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

BeachGuy said:


> To stop having sex with your spouse just because you don't care for it anymore is plain mean in my book. I had it done to me big time. It's completely ruined our relationship and torn apart our family. And she could care less.


Good chance that she does care, but not enough to overcome whatever she finds unappealing about having sex with you. As Mem says, maybe the relationship is too stable or you are too complacent, so she does not feel any spark of desire or arousal. And she may consider it wrong to agree to sex when she is not aroused. Your wife may not understand reactive desire or why it is OK to start and see where it leads (as long as you are OK with her stopping well short of your intended destination if she never gets going). You may not understand complacency and what you might need to add to your marriage (excitement, new experiences, adrenaline) to spark her desire.

The real hard cases are the ones where the LD person is actively opposed to introducing excitement and new experiences into the marriage, because they have a high desire for stability. Some LDs are actively opposed to allowing themselves to feel strong desire for their spouse, out of fear of loss of control. In my view, those are cases where the HD should strongly consider leaving because there is almost zero chance of resolving the sexual mismatch if the LD is not open to adding some zing to their interaction.

But be clear: refusing to have sex with you does not necessarily mean she doesn't care. It may just mean she is ignorant or afraid of what needs to change.


----------



## Fozzy (Jul 20, 2013)

john117 said:


> The concept of cake eating is not new. But it is part of a trifecta of social and cultural norms that make it's impact MUCH higher...
> 
> - social norms to marry quickly and avoid living together
> -* legal norms that are way too LD friendly*
> - cultural norms about sex in general esp how women are to remain "pure" lolz vs objectifying them...


Expand on this please? Not sure I follow.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Marduk,

I do think there are a very wide range of underlying causes. 

I share this bit below - because I found it to be so interesting. Woman on a similar board - love shack - had a very long thread. At a glance the guy was a total home run. In reality, not so much. 

http://talkaboutmarriage.com/mens-c...story-wealth-beauty-adultery-sexlessness.html







marduk said:


> It's always why I find it fascinating to try to understand the LD folks. I mean, the ones who's spouses are actively turning off, I get. The ones that have a medical condition or are just LD I get.
> 
> But I don't get why the ones that are being turned off aren't open about that, and I don't get why the ones with long term medical issues or are just LD don't have a different conversation with their HD spouses.
> 
> ...


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

MEM11363 said:


> Marduk,
> 
> I do think there are a very wide range of underlying causes.
> 
> ...


I think there can be a wide range of causes for not being attracted to your partner.

It can go from bad breath to a genetic condition.

What fascinates me is that people can't seem to have a real dialogue about it.

Or, for some reason, the LD always holds all the power. Like it's somehow reasonable to expect monogamy and a lack of sexual interest, forever.

The more I think about this, the more I think there's an economics aspect: as in the law of supply and demand. If I can keep supply low, and demand high, then I can create an exorbitant cost per unit of said supply. Because I own the only supply and can trigger demand as much as I want.

It's funny how many times I've directly experienced, or heard discussed... how altering either side of the equation alters the core balance of power in the relationship.

I.e. if one kills the demand (outcome independence & 180) the supplier often starts advertising and lowering the cost per unit.

Or if one considers finding a new supplier, the same happens.

Just like economics.

Which is a pretty cold and ****ty way to look at it, but I can't think of another way, unless people will actually talk about these things and own it in a reasonable fashion.

As in, conversations like:

"Spouse, I just don't want sex any more. I'm ready to life a sexless life. But I don't expect you to. What would that look like for you?"

"Spouse, I really get turned off for a long time when you don't really spend time with me or talk to me. It makes me feel like a piece of furniture."

"Spouse, I really just need some space about sex. Can we give it a month off, and go and get some counselling about it, and I promise to work really hard on my side to figure out what's not working?"

"Spouse, I still love you but your weight is becoming a big problem for me. I know that's probably hard to hear, but I miss being attracted to you. Can we work on that together?"

Etc.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Marduk,
My experience at work was that the most common 'deadly sin' wasn't greed, it was insecurity. 

The reason you don't understand the situation where an LD isn't talking is that: 

You have a healthy ego and are therefore comfortable hearing and applying constructive feedback. 

A lot of men aren't. 




marduk said:


> It's always why I find it fascinating to try to understand the LD folks. I mean, the ones who's spouses are actively turning off, I get. The ones that have a medical condition or are just LD I get.
> 
> But I don't get why the ones that are being turned off aren't open about that, and I don't get why the ones with long term medical issues or are just LD don't have a different conversation with their HD spouses.
> 
> ...


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

MEM11363 said:


> Marduk,
> My experience at work was that the most common 'deadly sin' wasn't greed, it was insecurity.
> 
> The reason you don't understand the situation where an LD isn't talking is that:
> ...


I agree.

However, trying to be reasonable, what's going to hurt more?

"Husband, lose the gut and start brushing your teeth!"

vs

"No" every night for 30 years

vs

"Husband, I'm sorry to tell you, but I'm running off with Raul the pool boy. I love you but I'm not in love with you. I swear it has nothing to do with his six pack and attention to hygiene!"


----------



## ocotillo (Oct 17, 2011)

All this back and forth is interesting, but it again assumes that there are always, always, always identifiable and quantifiable reasons for sexless marriages.

I'm still not sure I buy into that notion.


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

marduk: There are plenty of cases of guys pretending to have more money than they actually do, spending it all, then divorcing or willing themselves to an early grave when the money runs out and they cannot keep up the charade any longer. Plenty of women find out in divorce or after their husband died that their finances are not what the husband pretended them to be.

Does not make it any better than the women who pretend to enjoy sex and then allow the truth to slip out after the ring is on their finger. Many humans find it acceptable to pretend (lie?) to get what they want.


----------



## Runs like Dog (Feb 25, 2011)

Therapists clearly acknowledge there are asexual or celibate marriages where both partners are completely fine with it. The cases that get their attention are where (one imagines) sex used to be good and now is not good (for some unknown reason like sunspots or something) but within that are two sub-cases where for some reason BOTH partners want more sex but somehow and not for medical reasons, can't. The only other case they address is when one partner wants more sex and the other does not or doesn't care. I submit there's another variation on a theme where one partner is denied sex intentionally and the other would rather burn naked tied to a post than submit. As long as their partner is suffering they count it as a win.


----------



## Centurions (Jan 31, 2013)

Greetings!

I suppose there may be a few cases where some medical problem is legit. Most of the LD excuses are just BS. Ever notice how, so often, GF's are always up for anything, anytime? Their desire is ferocious, constant, even impishly demanding.

But the *wife* has excuses nine ways to Sunday, she's tired, on and on.

Just think for a moment about all the effort a GF puts out to have hot sex with you? Drive for hours long distance? Check. Buy hotel room? Check. Call in sick to work? Check. Arrange babysitting? Yep, that too. The list goes on and on. And yet, the LD wife has sex at her fingertips, and can't be bothered.

BS. Don't put up with it! There's plenty of hot, hungry women that know sex is a priority. If that ever changes, either fix it damn quick, or find a new woman that does understand the priority of sex!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

ocotillo said:


> All this back and forth is interesting, but it again assumes that there are always, always, always identifiable and quantifiable reasons for sexless marriages.
> 
> I'm still not sure I buy into that notion.


Being a realist, I don't think that's the case.

However, being an empiricist, I think they exist, we just don't know what they are.

It's like surveys done to find out how many marriages have had affairs. It's not like people are always going to be honest with the data.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Holdingontoit said:


> marduk: There are plenty of cases of guys pretending to have more money than they actually do, spending it all, then divorcing or willing themselves to an early grave when the money runs out and they cannot keep up the charade any longer. Plenty of women find out in divorce or after their husband died that their finances are not what the husband pretended them to be.
> 
> Does not make it any better than the women who pretend to enjoy sex and then allow the truth to slip out after the ring is on their finger. Many humans find it acceptable to pretend (lie?) to get what they want.


I think people lie to get what they want all the time. I once told a woman that I really, really dug the fact that she was into world peace and 54-40 and I thought spending her summers protesting loggers by chaining herself to old growth trees was the reason I really liked her and wanted to date her.

When what I really liked was her fantastic body and willingness to get naked outdoors.

But it's no basis for a relationship, and it isn't going to end well.

And in that case, it didn't. Spectacularly so. Made the school newspaper, in fact.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Fozzy said:


> Expand on this please? Not sure I follow.



Some states have laughable standards on what constitutes a sexless marriage... Constructive abandonment numbers for example are all over the place...

Now I don't expect a PDF with a sex SOP for all newlyweds but the range I've seen is once a year to 10x a year. Meaning that one could be 11x a year and fully legal :rofl:

The courts do have a good sense of humor (3 rejections in a year) but alas it's not codified so...


----------



## Plan 9 from OS (Jul 13, 2012)

I came across this site, and it's a way to get a deeper understanding on what makes an asexual tick. I didn't read too much into it. 

Asexual Visibility and Education Network

At the end of the day though, I still do not understand how an asexual person could be selfish enough to rope a normal drive person into a marriage by outright lying about his/her sexuality. Sure, they would explain it away as a fear of being alone and wanting more intimacy. For fvck's sake, wouldn't it be more humane to either seek out another asexual for a partnership or to just be content with friendships????


----------



## Fozzy (Jul 20, 2013)

john117 said:


> Some states have laughable standards on what constitutes a sexless marriage... Constructive abandonment numbers for example are all over the place...
> 
> Now I don't expect a PDF with a sex SOP for all newlyweds but the range I've seen is once a year to 10x a year. Meaning that one could be 11x a year and fully legal :rofl:
> 
> The courts do have a good sense of humor (3 rejections in a year) but alas it's not codified so...


Interesting. I honestly didn't even know that the courts had guidelines for such things.


----------



## Trickster (Nov 19, 2011)

I've only read up to po age 12 and my head hurts.

Without making y'all suffer through a long read, I'll keep this short. That' may not be possible.

My wife and I have 23 years together, most of it sexless. 1-2X a month. It was pretty lousy. My wife was still a virgin at 25 when we met and I brought lots of baggage and disfunction. I convinced myself sex wasn't important because I was skrewed up a jaded sexual past. With everything, she stayed. It just wasn't a romantic sexual love like I hoped. I thought over time it would improve. After 23 years, it hasn't. 

It did improve several years ago for a very short time when my wife thought I was going to divorce. Sometimes, she would initiate. Sometimes, she enjoyed sex, but it took a lot of work. I wouldn't even call it duty sex. She was just having sex so I wouldn't leave. It felt like a rapist! I felt worse after sex most of the time.

Why stay married? Because of my co-dependence, I accepted her LD for the first 18 years. 
I expected her to change when I made a decision that I wanted more. I wanted a sexual relationship with my wife. How can I expect her to change. It wasn't possible. I will say she tried. 

I realize that I am the one with a BPD. No matter what my personality of the day seems to be, no matter what tricks I have up my sleeve, my wife doesn't respond to anything, whether it's a good or bad thing. Deep down, my wife can continue this forever. Yes, I am the provider, but even an LL spouse should desire some affection and communicate that need. She is happy with a platonic marriage and doesn't want it to end.


IMO, when some people cheat, they are at a very low point and feel so unloved and undesired. So they stay because they feel nobody will ever love them. Eventually, that somebody comes along that gives then a little spark of being desired and its overwhelming. They give in to that hunger.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Fozzy said:


> Interesting. I honestly didn't even know that the courts had guidelines for such things.



You never wondered about the universal constant of once a month?


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Marduk,

It depends. If you have a guy who's going to get defensive and/or make empty promises, that creates a disincentive for this conversation. 

Especially if it's a guy who's also bad at conflict. Because that type guy will complain periodically but he won't ever DO anything. 




marduk said:


> I agree.
> 
> However, trying to be reasonable, what's going to hurt more?
> 
> ...


----------



## BeachGuy (Jul 6, 2011)

Holdingontoit said:


> The real hard cases are the ones where the LD person is actively opposed to introducing excitement and new experiences into the marriage, because they have a high desire for stability. Some LDs are actively opposed to allowing themselves to feel strong desire for their spouse, out of fear of loss of control. In my view, those are cases where the HD should strongly consider leaving because there is almost zero chance of resolving the sexual mismatch if the LD is not open to adding some zing to their interaction.
> 
> But be clear: refusing to have sex with you does not necessarily mean she doesn't care. It may just mean she is ignorant or afraid of what needs to change.


You nailed it. That's her. She was raised to not discuss it and rarely saw any affection in her family. Extremely conservative family. She has not once in 26 years ever instigated it. It was always me. We had an active bedroom life until our last child was born then she hyper focused on the kids and lost all interest. I tried and tried and tried to keep our relationship exciting and she wanted no part of any of it. Very prudish.


----------



## ocotillo (Oct 17, 2011)

marduk said:


> It's like surveys done to find out how many marriages have had affairs. It's not like people are always going to be honest with the data.


I dunno. We had a protracted discussion here (132 pages) over an article entitled, The Night I Gave My Husband a Hall Pass. The thinking of that author struck me as both eerily familiar and typical of the genuine confusion of the LD partner. 

I understand that from the standpoint of marriage counseling, advice needs to be given in a non-punishing manner, which usually means spreading responsibility around as evenly as possible.

But when the LD partner does not know themselves what went wrong, it puts the HD partner in the position of finding a black cat in a coal cellar at midnight.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

MEM11363 said:


> Marduk,
> 
> It depends. If you have a guy who's going to get defensive and/or make empty promises, that creates a disincentive for this conversation.
> 
> Especially if it's a guy who's also bad at conflict. Because that type guy will complain periodically but he won't ever DO anything.


But then the ball is in his court, right?

And the wife in this case should draw a line in the sand and be clear about what's going to happen (or not happen) if things don't change for good.

You cant complain about not getting what you want and shut off the emotional or physical taps on one hand, and tolerate it on the other.

Own what you want. 

Take accountability.


----------



## moco82 (Jul 16, 2012)

Be careful: too much sex can also be grounds for divorce in some jurisdictions.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

The situation that disturbs me the most is where stability causes wives to lose desire for sex. Here you've given her what she wanted (commitment) and she responds by deprioritizing sex. If you threaten to leave her or she's in an affair, then the sex drive comes raging back. If that's the way that a woman's sex drive works, then I think she's obligated to understand that and actively work against it. I understand that biology is biology and you can't control it but, come on, that's fvcked up! I suppose it could be on the man to actively create instability to maintain attraction, but that's perverse.

Another situation is where a husband (and sex) is deprioritized and put at the bottom of the list (usually after kids). It would seem, in a good marriage where she claims to love her husband, it should be easy to figure out a way to compromise. I think two things work against this: the current meme that "a woman shouldn't have sex unless she really wants to" and modern culture's emphasis on women's needs over men's. However, it is incumbent on the man to make his needs known and be comfortable ensuring that they are addressed. A husband must say something along the lines of "I have no intention of remaining in a sexless marriage for the rest of my life, we need to work together to improve this if we're going to stay married".


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Buddy,

This is a much more common occurrence than folks like to talk about. And it's a little bit complicated. 

Financial stability - is good, does not suppress desire levels
Monogamy stability - the same as above

Too much routine, too many attempts to appease to keep her 'happy', those are desire killers. 





Buddy400 said:


> The situation that disturbs me the most is where stability causes wives to lose desire for sex. Here you've given her what she wanted (commitment) and she responds by deprioritizing sex. If you threaten to leave her or she's in an affair, then the sex drive comes raging back. If that's the way that a woman's sex drive works, then I think she's obligated to understand that and actively work against it. I understand that biology is biology and you can't control it but, come on, that's fvcked up! I suppose it could be on the man to actively create instability to maintain attraction, but that's perverse.
> 
> Another situation is where a husband (and sex) is deprioritized and put at the bottom of the list. It would seem, in a good marriage where she claims to love her husband, it should be easy to figure out a way to compromise. I think two things work against this: the current meme that "a woman shouldn't have sex unless she really wants to" and modern culture's emphasis on women's needs over men's. However, it is incumbent on the man to make his needs known and be comfortable ensuring that they are addressed. A husband must say something along the lines of "I have no intention of remaining in a sexless marriage for the rest of my life, we need to work together to improve this if we're going to stay married".


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

ocotillo said:


> I dunno. We had a protracted discussion here (132 pages) over an article entitled, The Night I Gave My Husband a Hall Pass. The thinking of that author struck me as both eerily familiar and typical of the genuine confusion of the LD partner.
> 
> I understand that from the standpoint of marriage counseling, advice needs to be given in a non-punishing manner, which usually means spreading responsibility around as evenly as possible.
> 
> But when the LD partner does not know themselves what went wrong, it puts the HD partner in the position of finding a black cat in a coal cellar at midnight.


Go back to my economics point: it's a false monopoly. Change the demand side, or change the supply side, and you dramatically alter the relationship between the supplier and consumer of said demand.

For example, my wife didn't have a problem with her going away to party with her girlfriends all the time... and fought tooth and nail about it...

Until I started doing it, too. By mirroring her behaviour, I adjusted both supply and demand at the same time.

And then we had a dramatically different conversation.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Buddy400 said:


> The situation that disturbs me the most is where stability causes wives to lose desire for sex. Here you've given her what she wanted (commitment) and she responds by deprioritizing sex. If you threaten to leave her or she's in an affair, then the sex drive comes raging back. If that's the way that a woman's sex drive works, then I think she's obligated to understand that and actively work against it. I understand that biology is biology and you can't control it but, come on, that's fvcked up! I suppose it could be on the man to actively create instability to maintain attraction, but that's perverse.
> 
> Another situation is where a husband (and sex) is deprioritized and put at the bottom of the list (usually after kids). It would seem, in a good marriage where she claims to love her husband, it should be easy to figure out a way to compromise. I think two things work against this: the current meme that "a woman shouldn't have sex unless she really wants to" and modern culture's emphasis on women's needs over men's. However, it is incumbent on the man to make his needs known and be comfortable ensuring that they are addressed. A husband must say something along the lines of "I have no intention of remaining in a sexless marriage for the rest of my life, we need to work together to improve this if we're going to stay married".


I would say that differently.

I would say that gender roles are very much in flux in our society, and that's very difficult for some women in particular: they are told that they can have it all, and have it all at once. A family, a career, a marriage, a life of her own.

And it's not just a family -- it's shiny happy kids that are overacheiving and in every class, camp, and extra-curricular activity possible.

And it's not just a career -- it's an executive, or their own business, or whatever -- where they can compete not just with men (who have different roles in the family perhaps) but with women who don't have kids, too.

And it's not just a marriage -- it's a rockstar perfect marriage with a shiny happy supportive husband and a shiny happy house to boot. Incredible sex, great deep talks, everybody's fit and stylish.

And it's not just any life of their own -- it's yoga or marathons or book readings or you name it.

The women I know are under tremendous pressure to have it all, do it all, be it all -- and be all those things flawlessly all at once. And if they can't, it must be some fault of theirs. The ones I know... seem to feel like they're constantly on the precipice of some great failure.

It must be incredibly difficult.


----------



## anonmd (Oct 23, 2014)

That is Fcked up. 

Not saying it isn't true but it is screwed up and it isn't men's fault. 



marduk said:


> I would say that differently.
> 
> I would say that gender roles are very much in flux in our society, and that's very difficult for some women in particular: they are told that they can have it all, and have it all at once. A family, a career, a marriage, a life of her own.
> 
> ...


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

anonmd said:


> That is Fcked up.
> 
> Not saying it isn't true but it is screwed up and it isn't men's fault.


I think it's just as hard for guys.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Marduk,

This is what I mean about you being good at conflict. 

In a good marriage, not only is there fidelity, but there's the avoidance of situations that create doubt on that topic. 

First you explained and then, that having failed you used a reflective version of the golden rule: 
Do unto others as they have already done and plan to continue to do unto you

For the folks reading this, most of the reason I say Marduk is good at conflict is because he has a very steady hand on the tiller. The situation he describes below was one that he patiently attempted to resolve via dialog. 

He doesn't escalate until concluding he has no good alternative. So when he does escalate, he doesn't back down. 

In this case, the commodity in question was 'perceived security'. And his wife assumed that she could do what she wanted while Marduk would continue to provide her an unconditional stream of such security. 




marduk said:


> Go back to my economics point: it's a false monopoly. Change the demand side, or change the supply side, and you dramatically alter the relationship between the supplier and consumer of said demand.
> 
> For example, my wife didn't have a problem with her going away to party with her girlfriends all the time... and fought tooth and nail about it...
> 
> ...


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

M2 is more competitive than I am. That's a gift and a curse. 





marduk said:


> I would say that differently.
> 
> I would say that gender roles are very much in flux in our society, and that's very difficult for some women in particular: they are told that they can have it all, and have it all at once. A family, a career, a marriage, a life of her own.
> 
> ...


----------



## UMP (Dec 23, 2014)

Buddy400 said:


> The situation that disturbs me the most is where stability causes wives to lose desire for sex. Here you've given her what she wanted (commitment) and she responds by deprioritizing sex. If you threaten to leave her or she's in an affair, then the sex drive comes raging back. If that's the way that a woman's sex drive works, then I think she's obligated to understand that and actively work against it. I understand that biology is biology and you can't control it but, come on, that's fvcked up! I suppose it could be on the man to actively create instability to maintain attraction, but that's perverse.
> 
> Another situation is where a husband (and sex) is deprioritized and put at the bottom of the list (usually after kids). It would seem, in a good marriage where she claims to love her husband, it should be easy to figure out a way to compromise. I think two things work against this: the current meme that "a woman shouldn't have sex unless she really wants to" and modern culture's emphasis on women's needs over men's. However, it is incumbent on the man to make his needs known and be comfortable ensuring that they are addressed. A husband must say something along the lines of "I have no intention of remaining in a sexless marriage for the rest of my life, we need to work together to improve this if we're going to stay married".


I have to agree with you on both counts. However, sometimes the fault lies in your own lap. I woke up one day after 20+ years of marriage and was 50 pounds over weight, had a bad attitude, angry and just basically unattractive. Even though I experienced both of your examples in my marriage, the real turnaround happened when I made a conscious effort to become the person my wife married so many years ago. THAT worked.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

MEM11363 said:


> Marduk,
> 
> This is what I mean about you being good at conflict.
> 
> ...


I really appreciate the compliment... 

But let me tell you that wasn't how it went down at all. I had my freak outs, my insecurities, my sleepless nights... begging her to change.

Brick wall. 

Then I changed. And when I changed, and acted on that change, everything changed.

I guess what I'm hoping to provide here is a way for other people to get there without having to go through all that emotional turmoil about it.

Because that really sucked.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

UMP,

Self awareness is such a gift. 

I'll contrast you with a prototypical guy on TAM. His wife has mostly stopped sleeping with him and it's driving him crazy. 

He comes on TAM, gets some honest feedback and tough questions. He promptly starts another thread. And then another. That type of guy is unable to take a harsh look in the mirror. 

Without that, he gets nowhere. He concludes TAM isn't useful. 

The truth is, that at its best TAM is a mirror made of 'smart glass'. It zooms in on your flaws so you can really see them. 




UMP said:


> I have to agree with you on both counts. However, sometimes the fault lies in your own lap. I woke up one day after 20+ years of marriage and was 50 pounds over weight, had a bad attitude, angry and just basically unattractive. Even though I experienced both of your examples in my marriage, the real turnaround happened when I made a conscious effort to become the person my wife married so many years ago. THAT worked.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

UMP said:


> I have to agree with you on both counts. However, sometimes the fault lies in your own lap. I woke up one day after 20+ years of marriage and was 50 pounds over weight, had a bad attitude, angry and just basically unattractive. Even though I experienced both of your examples in my marriage, the real turnaround happened when I made a conscious effort to become the person my wife married so many years ago. THAT worked.


I agree. The first place a husband should look is at himself. If someone is 50 lbs heavier than when they married, angry and has a bad attitude, that's got to be fixed first.

Did that alone do the trick? Suddenly she was as interested in sex as she was at the beginning?

I'm not speaking from experience, just intellectually curious. 

Also, as a side note, about 15 years ago I got on a workout jag. I was absolutely ripped. It never affected her desire in any way that I noticed (sure, she said that it was nice to look up and see THAT). So physical attraction can't be the ONLY answer.


----------



## UMP (Dec 23, 2014)

MEM11363 said:


> UMP,
> 
> Self awareness is such a gift.
> 
> ...


Given the fact that changing another person is next to impossible, I figured that changing myself (also very difficult but not impossible) was the only logical plan of attack.

In many ways I feel that I have become an even better person to live with than when I first got married. Early in a relationship you can hide who you really are. Keeping up that façade for 20+ years is also next to impossible. If one can come to grips with the fact that self improvement is a lifelong journey it's easier to accept. Combine that with a happy, into sex wife and you end up with a win-win.

In all honesty, it's a no brainer.

The VERY interesting part is that my wife seems to be changing with me. Instead of demanding xyz, I simply try to make sex so enjoyable for her that the inevitable conclusion is her voluntarily and enthusiastically succumbing to my deviant mind. :grin2:


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

UMP said:


> the real turnaround happened when I made a conscious effort to become the person my wife married so many years ago. THAT worked.



With the exception of 20 lb extra and six figures more I actually am the person my wife married 30 years ago. 

She turned into her mother.


----------



## UMP (Dec 23, 2014)

Buddy400 said:


> I agree. The first place a husband should look is at himself. If someone is 50 lbs heavier than when they married, angry and has a bad attitude, that's got to be fixed first.
> 
> Did that alone do the trick? Suddenly she was as interested in sex as she was at the beginning?
> 
> ...


I think the 50 pounds was simply a catalyst for the final product. When you are fat and unhappy, it effects all aspects of your life. Losing the weight not only made me better looking it also made me confident. Chicks dig confidence. I also made it clear, as you stated earlier, that if she did not dig the new me, someone else sure as hell would.

She got on board and really never looked back. I record every single sexual interaction we have and I rate the experience from 1 - 10. After 24 years with the same person, lately I need a number bigger than 10. To me, it's nearly unbelievable after all these years. Sometimes I feel like I am living a dream. I know it sounds cliché and all, but I really mean it. The sex is off the charts amazing.

I think the key now is to try and maintain this level as best I can. I believe it is much easier to maintain than climb the mountain. Getting here took me several years and MUCH mental anguish. I NEVER want to go through that again.

My wife is the classic "good girl" and never wanted to try anything new.  Now, she is sporting fake tattoos, black finger nail polish, lingerie and 6" heels, JUST FOR ME. She then takes it ALL off and returns to her "good girl" façade. It's a hoot and I'm loving every minute of it.


----------



## UMP (Dec 23, 2014)

john117 said:


> With the exception of 20 lb extra and six figures more I actually am the person my wife married 30 years ago.
> 
> She turned into her mother.


I also DID give an ultimatum. I basically said, "look, here is the new me. If you don't want it, I really don't care that I will be financially and personally ruined by divorce. Enthusiastic sex is a non negotiable need that I have."

She KNEW I was not joking and chose to step up to the plate and play pro ball. Turns out, I think she is starting to like it even more than me which is exactly the way I want it.>

She learned to let herself go and enjoy the ride. We're both glad.

On her end I believe she said to herself, "I can either leave him and create severe anguish for all involved and try to find some other schmuck that may end up being worse than him. Maybe I should give it a try with someone I have 20+ years invested in. What have I got to lose? Let's see what he's got."


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Not everyone is so easily swayed, I'm afraid. Ultimatum or not.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

John,
Your certainty that it's 'all J2's fault' guarantees the outcome.




john117 said:


> With the exception of 20 lb extra and six figures more I actually am the person my wife married 30 years ago.
> 
> She turned into her mother.


----------



## ocotillo (Oct 17, 2011)

marduk said:


> Go back to my economics point: it's a false monopoly. Change the demand side, or change the supply side, and you dramatically alter the relationship between the supplier and consumer of said demand.
> 
> For example, my wife didn't have a problem with her going away to party with her girlfriends all the time... and fought tooth and nail about it...
> 
> ...


I think that is a decent explanation for situations where the, "Water control" model applies. (i.e. Poor farmer downstream only gets his crops watered when rich landowner upstream is damn good and ready, which is an unhealthy level of control in marriage..)

Do you think it also applies to situations where the LD partner laments their loss of libido and in the early stages, wishes they could get it back?


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Instead he chose to engage in a pattern of 'joking' comments about how sexually frustrates he was.




Bugged said:


> If my partner ever gave me an ultimatum, it would be the end of it all...juts doens't work with me...


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

ocotillo said:


> I think that is a decent explanation for situations where the, "Water control" model applies. (i.e. Poor farmer downstream only gets his crops watered when rich landowner upstream is damn good and ready, which is an unhealthy level of control in marriage..)
> 
> Do you think it also applies to situations where the LD partner laments their loss of libido and in the early stages, wishes they could get it back?


I think my response would be very different if my spouse was upset and working on it vs accepting it and expecting me to do the same.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

MEM11363 said:


> John,
> 
> Your certainty that it's 'all J2's fault' guarantees the outcome.



The fault percentage question is for litigation awards 

What's at play here is willingness to take action and solve the issues. Something that she's absolutely unable / unwilling to do.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Marduk,

I believe there's a way to describe consequences that's honest without being intentionally threatening. 

There are a few necessary elements to the marital bond. Remove either of them and the bond withers: quality time, or physical intimacy including sex

That result will just happen. It's inevitable. And not easily reversed. 

Except for some people none of that is true. Lacking an emotional circuit breaker, they desperately, frantically continue to love someone who no longer loves them. 

M2 and I both have that circuit breaker. We recognize how incredibly valuable it is. 






marduk said:


> I think my response would be very different if my spouse was upset and working on it vs accepting it and expecting me to do the same.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## ocotillo (Oct 17, 2011)

marduk said:


> I think my response would be very different if my spouse was upset and working on it vs accepting it and expecting me to do the same.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Exactly. 

I'm not sure if being married to a "Nice" LD who genuinely feels bad about it is much different in terms of sexual frequency, but it does affect our attitude and approach.

Maybe this helps to answer the OP's question as to why some people stick it out for so long...


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

It's not a question of sticking for too long - the change is gradual... In some cases at least.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Duplicate


----------



## DTO (Dec 18, 2011)

Plan 9 from OS said:


> In other cases, I think the LD suffers every bit as much as the HD.


I think not, unless physical, mental, or abuse / shame issues., etc. are a big factor - where the LD person tries to have a good sex life but cannot overcome his or her circumstances.

I was in an extended marriage to a LD person. I missed the sex greatly and spent many years futilely trying to improve our sex life. If the lack of a sex life were hurting her as much as me, all she had to do is say "yes" regularly.

It makes no sense to assert that the LD spouse is suffering just as much as the HD spouse from a circumstance that same LD spouse is perpetuating. I feel the number of people who would choose to inflict that level of pain on themselves is very, very low.

I can buy that it is a painful choice that is easier than the alternative (working on oneself or the relationship), but that's not nearly the same thing.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Oco,
I would use the term 'generous' to describe M2. She is a 'generous' LD. 

This means she makes an effort to meet me in the middle frequency wise. 

And fortunately we have a style that has been key to our overall happiness from day one. There is no half assed participation in anything we do together. 

Whether that's shopping at Home Depot, date night or sex if you're in you are 'all in'. Engaged and positive. 





ocotillo said:


> Exactly.
> 
> I'm not sure if being married to a "Nice" LD who genuinely feels bad about it is much different in terms of sexual frequency, but it does affect our attitude and approach.
> 
> Maybe this helps to answer the OP's question as to why some people stick it out for so long...


----------



## DTO (Dec 18, 2011)

always_alone said:


> and the plethora of world religions that would insist that fornication is for procreation not pleasure.


Really?

There are many, many Christians in the world (Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox; and subdivisions of those). The Bible is very clear that sex is a requirement of marriage. Your obligation to your spouse is to provide a sex life sufficient for your spouse to not be tempted to sin (seek sex outside of the marriage).

You make it sound like almost every religious person would agree with your statement, when it is nowhere near that universal.


----------



## UMP (Dec 23, 2014)

john117 said:


> Not everyone is so easily swayed, I'm afraid. Ultimatum or not.


Yes, 
I understand. You know what the crazy part is? You really are not asking for much. You are simply asking for mutual gratifying sex on a regular basis from the woman you vowed to spend the rest of your life with.

Seems VERY reasonable to me. On top of that, I'm sure if she let you, you would rock her world.

So sad and unnecessary, kind of like cutting off your nose to spite your face. How to fix idiocy is beyond me.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

That's because the perceived benefits of not having frequent gratifying sex are greater than the perceived benefits of having frequent gratifying sex.

It's idiocy once in a while but more often than not it's flawed but deliberate thinking and stereotypical influence and all that. Nothing we haven't seen


----------



## UMP (Dec 23, 2014)

john117 said:


> That's because the perceived benefits of not having frequent gratifying sex are greater than the perceived benefits of having frequent gratifying sex.
> 
> It's idiocy once in a while but more often than not it's flawed but deliberate thinking and stereotypical influence and all that. Nothing we haven't seen


At some point someone has to submit. I figured it was very difficult for my wife to submit to me in this area, especially if I was not trying my best to be the best husband I could be. So, I realized "Ok, you don't want to submit to me as I currently am, Mr. fat and angry, I get that." .....Time goes buy, "hey, here is the new me, am I worthy of your submission now?" Thankfully, the answer was "yes."

If you are truly satisfied that you have done everything in your power to earn your wifes submission in this matter, in my opinion, there is nothing else to do, other than pray.

The question is "what kind of man is needed for x woman to submit to her husband sexually?" My wife needed a man that did not complain about anything, was able to control his anger, was good in bed, took care of himself and his family and was faithful to her. Once I achieved that, it was her choice to make.

Her choice was, "stay and enjoy frequent mutually gratifying sex with my husband."

or "leave and destroy my family and hope to find someone else as good or better than my current husband."

I guess some people would rather self implode than submit.
I cannot imagine a more miserable existence.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

Bugged said:


> ...divorce is always an option...why all the hate..just DUMP them if they're *SO AWFUL*...)


Exactly. I don't hate my ex (although I don't like her much), but after many years of unsuccessfully trying to find a mutually acceptable solution, I divorced her.

We both ended up happier - she with a LD man, me with my HD wife.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

UMP said:


> At some point someone has to submit. I figured it was very difficult for my wife to submit to me in this area, especially if I was not trying my best to be the best husband I could be. So, I realized "Ok, you don't want to submit to me as I currently am, Mr. fat and angry, I get that." .....Time goes buy, "hey, here is the new me, am I worthy of your submission now?" Thankfully, the answer was "yes."
> 
> If you are truly satisfied that you have done everything in your power to earn your wifes submission in this matter, in my opinion, there is nothing else to do, other than pray.
> 
> ...



An absolutely key part of what you are saying here is that you took on all of the responsibility for being someone sexually desirable. 

Yes, some people would rather self implode than submit, but I would say that this equally applies to the HD partner. It is often assumed here on TAM that the HD is always doing all of the right things, is always super attractive, a super good lover, attentive to the needs of their LD partner. And frankly, this is simply not the case.

Very often, the LD is responding or reacting, not instigating.


----------



## UMP (Dec 23, 2014)

always_alone said:


> An absolutely key part of what you are saying here is that you took on all of the responsibility for being someone sexually desirable.
> 
> Yes, some people would rather self implode than submit, but I would say that this equally applies to the HD partner. It is often assumed here on TAM that the HD is always doing all of the right things, is always super attractive, a super good lover, attentive to the needs of their LD partner. And frankly, this is simply not the case.
> 
> Very often, the LD is responding or reacting, not instigating.


I agree 100%. Not until I changed and tried to become the same or even better person than my wife married did I give her the choice. Who wants to submit to a non committed, distant, angry, two thumbed, whinny, needy, fat schlub?


----------



## Runs like Dog (Feb 25, 2011)

Some people don't want to BE better people. Some people only want to ensure that everyone else is as miserable as they are. It makes them feel oddly better about themselves. They are the paranoids of the world. And there is nothing you can ever do to cheer them up or appease them or get them to meet you halfway. It cannot be done.


----------



## UMP (Dec 23, 2014)

Runs like Dog said:


> Some people don't want to BE better people. Some people only want to ensure that everyone else is as miserable as they are. It makes them feel oddly better about themselves. They are the paranoids of the world. And there is nothing you can ever do to cheer them up or appease them or get them to meet you halfway. It cannot be done.


Sad, but true.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Runs like Dog said:


> Some people don't want to BE better people. Some people only want to ensure that everyone else is as miserable as they are. It makes them feel oddly better about themselves. They are the paranoids of the world. And there is nothing you can ever do to cheer them up or appease them or get them to meet you halfway. It cannot be done.


This can happen. 

And the natural consequence for this behaviour should be perpetually being single. 

The problem happens when their partner ties themselves up in knots about it, doesn't present it as an entirely unreasonable expectation, gives them a shot at changing, and exits the relationship if the changes don't happen. 

Not out of malice, but because that's a natural and reasonable outcome for their behaviour.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## WandaJ (Aug 5, 2014)

Bugged said:


> UMP, you have your priorities..other people have other priorities..I find it rather *sad *that someone might want to dump their wife after so many years because she doesn't live up to their expectations about 'enthusiastic' sex..whatever enthustiastic means...
> Also this thread is full of the usual insults and adagios that LD people are *stupid *or *selfish *or *traumatized *etc etc..what a drag...they're not like you..get it instead of blaming them...divorce is always an option...why all the hate..just DUMP them if they're *SO AWFUL*...
> No wonder not many ld people hang 'round here...
> 
> I wonder how come they don't give LDs a life sentence after reading this thread>


Bugged, this is true that HD on TAM are much more vocal and in general, LDs just stay quiet. I think that's actually shows us difference in the temperaments. WE have fired up HD fighting for what's important to them. And we have LD sitting quietly on the sides, because fire and fight is not just part of their nature.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Bugged said:


> uhm..so what is it...submitting or negotiating (meeting in the middle)?
> Also, how does one that's been *threatened with divorce* avoid becoming a sex slave? How does it work exactly??..because it's very easy to say...oh you're not _enthusiastic_...how can one trust someone that's been blackmailed (sorry but this is what is it)to be honest about how they feel?..i think it's *very very* complicated..I'd go my separated ways..Id never try to turn someone into something they're not..let alone _blame _them for who they are...
> world is beautiful because it's varied.>


I agree with you completely, bugged.

People should not ask each other to change at a fundamental level. They should simply agree to split up and allow each other to remain who they are. Staying together when people are incompatible just causes a lot of drama and pain.

I hope that future generations do not place a bunch of guilt and shame upon people for getting divorced, because divorce should always be an option. Perhaps if people continue to wait until they are older to get married and spend more time sorting out compatibility issues, there will be less divorce in the future anyway. Or simply less marriage, which is ok, too.

But to bang your head against a wall for years trying to change someone into something they are not, and agonize over how your needs are not met by this person (that's why you must change them) is just a cruel exercise in self destruction (and destruction of your spouse).


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

FW I think a more balanced approach is probably warranted. 

My sex life is not who I am. 

However, I have preferences - like being heterosexual that is unlikely to change. 

On one hand, I may be awakened to he merits of a slightly different sexual lifestyle by my partner. 

On the other hand, it should be respectful enough that a wholesale change of my preferences is being asked for. 

These lines are all different for different people.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Buddy,

If the man isn't secure, stable and fun to be with it doesn't matter how fit he is. 

Don't get me wrong, being ripped will help a man in a pick up bar, it just doesn't compensate for serious personality/behavioral issues in a LTR. 




Buddy400 said:


> I agree. The first place a husband should look is at himself. If someone is 50 lbs heavier than when they married, angry and has a bad attitude, that's got to be fixed first.
> 
> Did that alone do the trick? Suddenly she was as interested in sex as she was at the beginning?
> 
> ...


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

marduk said:


> FW I think a more balanced approach is probably warranted.
> 
> My sex life is not who I am.
> 
> ...


Natural libido is not a preference, it is part of our nature and rarely changes (outside of hormonal swings).

Asking a naturally LD or HD spouse to change is like banging your head against a wall and it is cruel.

Accepting each other as we are, even if that means breaking up, is far more fair and kind.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Faithful Wife said:


> I agree with you completely, bugged.
> 
> People should not ask each other to change at a fundamental level. They should simply agree to split up and allow each other to remain who they are. Staying together when people are incompatible just causes a lot of drama and pain.
> 
> ...


Certainly no one should enter into a marriage with the expectation that their partner will change on a fundamental level. But what if the differences don't exist until after marriage or several years later?

Surely, some effort to compromise for the sake of the relationship is to be expected isn't it? If not, then it's going to be difficult (if not impossible) to find the perfect partner. The amount of compromise varies. 1st date? Why bother. Married?, surely some effort is appropriate. Young kids, a house, a stay-at-home parent, blended finances?; I'd suggest a serious effort to make the marriage work needed. 

The problem is that sexual compatibility often doesn't become an issue until after the kids arrive (and, indeed, often seems to be caused by the arrival of the kids). I don't think it's good to just walk away without trying to resolve the issue (and, life isn't long enough to go through this process as many times as it might take to get it right). It may well be that the solution is makes everyone happier. Now, if it turns out that one partner simply hates sex and the other requires it, then there's not much choice. The trick there is to flush out this issue as soon as possible (not wait years hoping something will change). So I think the approach of "I'm not willing to live In a sexless marriage forever. Let's see if we can work together to resolve this" is needed. I don't think that this is an ultimatum and I think it's a lot better than just casually ending the marriage because "you can't expect someone to change".

I believe that achieving happy marriage is worth the effort. Better for he kids, the finances and, most of all, the husband and wife.

Maybe we don't have a disagreement, but it seems as if there are a lot of people these days that are saying that one shouldn't even bother trying.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

MEM11363 said:


> Buddy,
> 
> If the man isn't secure, stable and fun to be with it doesn't matter how fit he is.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, being ripped will help a man in a pick up bar, it just doesn't compensate for serious personality/behavioral issues in a LTR.


Lucky for me I'm secure, stable and fun to be with! :smile2:


----------



## tornado (Jan 10, 2014)

Bugged said:


> uhm..so what is it...submitting or negotiating (meeting in the middle)?
> Also, how does one that's been *threatened with divorce* avoid becoming a sex slave? How does it work exactly??..because it's very easy to say...oh you're not _enthusiastic_...how can one trust someone that's been blackmailed (sorry but this is what is it)to be honest about how they feel?..i think it's *very very* complicated..I'd go my separated ways..Id never try to turn someone into something they're not..let alone _blame _them for who they are...
> world is beautiful because it's varied.>


I agree completely. Once th decision to threaten divorce is made ( you do xyz or I'm leaving ) is made, probably should just go ahead and hire a lawyer. You cant live with things like they are, but the won't be able to live in this forced personality. People are generally who they are, might make subtle changes but most people won't become totally different people. Love them as they are, or move on.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## tornado (Jan 10, 2014)

Faithful Wife said:


> I agree with you completely, bugged.
> 
> People should not ask each other to change at a fundamental level. They should simply agree to split up and allow each other to remain who they are. Staying together when people are incompatible just causes a lot of drama and pain.
> 
> ...



I think most people fall into two categories. They either get into long term marriage definite relationships way to early ( don't know who they are, let alone what they want in a spouse) or the marry a project. He/she has a,b,c going good I'll marry them and work on d, e,f.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Faithful Wife said:


> Natural libido is not a preference, it is part of our nature and rarely changes (outside of hormonal swings).
> 
> Asking a naturally LD or HD spouse to change is like banging your head against a wall and it is cruel.
> 
> Accepting each other as we are, even if that means breaking up, is far more fair and kind.


I'm not sure I agree.

With my wife, sometimes by libido is really high, and sometimes not so much. It averages pretty high... but not always.

With other women, it has varied widely. Sometimes I'm really attracted, sometimes not.

What I'm trying to say is that everybody's not HD or LD necessarily. Sexuality is more contextual and dynamic than that.

Everybody has some +s or -s in there, the problem is that if there is absolutely no overlap and never is going to be; ya, then, you gotta call it. 

This would be akin to asking my wife to vastly change sexual preferences just to be with me.

But asking to have better sex instead of quickies, or changing the amount of sex by a certain number of percentage points... this is all part of relationship negotiation, no?


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Buddy400 said:


> Now, if it turns out that one partner simply hates sex and the other requires it, then there's not much choice. The trick there is to flush out this issue as soon as possible (not wait years hoping something will change).


We see this on TAM all the time...and it isn't that the LD necessarily "hates sex" they may just be naturally LD.

We see these HD spouses basically saying "I did everything right and my LD spouse is entirely in the wrong yet I will never leave them, I will just torture the both of us with my martyr attitude and go to my grave resentful".

These are the cases I'm talking about.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

marduk said:


> With my wife, sometimes by libido is really high, and sometimes not so much. It averages pretty high... but not always....


Since your wife is not naturally LD, then what I'm saying doesn't actually apply to your sitch.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Bugged,

A few general observations about how couples manage to surmount the difficulties associated with differing desire levels. And FWIW, it's foolish to limit this discussion to sexual desire because people bring many desires to a marriage: the desire for quality time - which may be unequal, for quality time spent one on one, or in a social setting or doing something active like hiking. 

So let's start with something innocuous like going for a walk. 

M2 initiates by suggesting we walk - I'm feeling lazy and don't really want to walk at the moment she suggests it. 

But internally the following thought process transpires - it is sub second:
- Rejection of partner requests for quality time is to be avoided if possible 
- Once we get going, I LIKE walking
- Older people who don't exercise gain weight - and I'm vain

So M2 asks:
- Do you want to go for a walk?
- And I look up from my IPad, smile and say: let me get my sneakers

That scenario is not much different for folks with responsive desire. 

---------
As for the couples who've reached some sort of deadlock, I think it's sometimes necessary to apply pressure simply to get out of a bad pattern of casual rejection. 

As far as threats of divorce go, I absolutely see that as a means of last resort. But I'll flip the script for you.

Some of the stuff described here simply wouldn't fly with me. Not for 3 months, much less a decade. 

For instance, the LD partner who feels desire a couple times a month but absolutely refuses to cue their partner or openly initiate. Those folks are basically creating a situation where their partner needs to absorb a 90+% rejection rate in order to have a shot at sex twice a month. 

Let's turn that around. Choose an activity that you really like to engage in with a partner and that is prohibited outside the relationship. So it's either them, or no one. And tell me what happens when they reject you at that rate. 

We're all grown ups. Rejection is a part of life. But when rejection is the primary long term response to an overture, that's toxic to the person making the overture. 







Bugged said:


> uhm..so what is it...submitting or negotiating (meeting in the middle)?
> Also, how does one that's been *threatened with divorce* avoid becoming a sex slave? How does it work exactly??..because it's very easy to say...oh you're not _enthusiastic_...how can one trust someone that's been blackmailed (sorry but this is what is it)to be honest about how they feel?..i think it's *very very* complicated..I'd go my separated ways..Id never try to turn someone into something they're not..let alone _blame _them for who they are...
> world is beautiful because it's varied.>


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Faithful Wife said:


> Since your wife is not naturally LD, then what I'm saying doesn't actually apply to your sitch.


Oh, no, I didn't think that you were saying that it did.

What I'm getting at is this kind of situation, that I've been on the happy end of a few times in my life...

I meet a girl. My buddies all say that this girl is 'frigid' and 'doesn't like sex' or 'won't give it up' or whatever.

I date said girl anyway. I like her; I think she's cool, hot, and frankly like the challenge.

I have sex with said girl, and she says to me "wow, I didn't know it could be like that." And we go on happily to have sex a bunch of times and she seems to continue on having good sex with other guys even after our relationship ends.

Now... I think all I did there was be open, accepting, and know how to turn a woman on. And then let her be OK with that, you know?

I think there's some possibility there with many LD folks. That there's a whole undiscovered country there, just waiting for them. Not for anybody to 'save,' but for themselves to realize that they have this secret garden...

Am I making sense?


----------



## tornado (Jan 10, 2014)

marduk said:


> I'm not sure I agree.
> 
> With my wife, sometimes by libido is really high, and sometimes not so much. It averages pretty high... but not always.
> 
> ...



I think it's negotiations if the two parties are close to what's acceptable. If one partner wants sex everyday, the other once a month. I think anything in the middle is gonna be unacceptable to both and not negotiating but a mandate.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

marduk said:


> Oh, no, I didn't think that you were saying that it did.
> 
> What I'm getting at is this kind of situation, that I've been on the happy end of a few times in my life...
> 
> ...


A. Why would you date a girl your friends have previous had or tried to have sex with? Ew.

B. There is no saying that said girl who enjoyed sex with you a few times wouldn't end up LD in the long run, since it is well established that most people have far more sex in new or short term relationships than in long term ones.

C. It is never your job to assist someone in finding their secret garden...don't kid yourself.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

tornado said:


> I think it's negotiations if the two parties are close to what's acceptable. If one partner wants sex everyday, the other once a month. I think anything in the middle is gonna be unacceptable to both and not negotiating but a mandate.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Ya, I agree.

But where does the natural and loving act of "ok, you want to try something... I'm not sure I'm comfortable with it, but I'm willing to give it a go because I love you and you're excited by it" go?

I mean, for me, that concept is an explicit mandate, within reason.

It's like a stop light - red, yellow, green. Every once in a while, we pull out some things that are a green for one and a yellow for another. Reds are firm 'nos.'


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Bugged,

The 'extortion' is solely to reboot a broken pattern. 

It's to get a partner to make an effort to create a 'different' habit. 

It wouldn't work with you because in your case most of the time sex is a lot of effort for minimal reward. 

For folks who don't generally like sex, or truly aren't into their partner, this type of extortion ends the marriage. Because those folks would find frequent sex to be a miserable burden. So it's a rational choice for them to end it. 

But for many, this just catalyze a positive change in habits. 




Bugged said:


> uhm..so what is it...submitting or negotiating (meeting in the middle)?
> Also, how does one that's been *threatened with divorce* avoid becoming a sex slave? How does it work exactly??..because it's very easy to say...oh you're not _enthusiastic_...how can one trust someone that's been blackmailed (sorry but this is what is it)to be honest about how they feel?..i think it's *very very* complicated..I'd go my separated ways..Id never try to turn someone into something they're not..let alone _blame _them for who they are...
> world is beautiful because it's varied.>


----------



## tornado (Jan 10, 2014)

marduk said:


> Ya, I agree.
> 
> But where does the natural and loving act of "ok, you want to try something... I'm not sure I'm comfortable with it, but I'm willing to give it a go because I love you and you're excited by it" go?
> 
> ...


Well, I've always kinda felt like most things should be tried, as long as it's between just them and is not physically dangerous. I would say most people don't share that feeling.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

MEM11363 said:


> Bugged,
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Think of work - you get a performance review warning if your work is not up to par - in most places I now that's the end of your career in that company regardless of subsequent improvement.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Faithful Wife said:


> A. Why would you date a girl your friends have previous had or tried to have sex with? Ew.


I had a lot of friends growing up. If I didn't hit in someone that someone I knew ever hit on... I'd never hit on anyone. Besides, hot women get hit on. I don't get the big deal. 

As for sex, I'm not a **** shamer. If a girl has self respect and I was attracted to her, if she dated a buddy years ago, why would I care?

Honestly I'd care more about if she broke my buddy's heart and if he'd get upset if I was dating her. 


> B. There is no saying that said girl who enjoyed sex with you a few times wouldn't end up LD in the long run, since it is well established that most people have far more sex in new or short term relationships than in long term ones.


As I said, I wasn't trying to save or sexually enlighten anyone. But it was sure fun being there when a woman discovers herself sexually. I dig that, you know?

And, after an early very positive sexual relationship, I kind of made a vow to myself to try to leave them as well or better than I found them. Certainly not something I achieved, but sought. 



> C. It is never your job to assist someone in finding their secret garden...don't kid yourself.


Sure. But it's a kick in the pants and brought me joy. It still does with my wife when we try something new and it really works for her. 

I like it when people are happy.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## tornado (Jan 10, 2014)

Bugged said:


> yeah I mean..a relationship shouldn't be _that _hard...I mean if you can't be yourself with your partner it does not make sense to me...
> I'm not saying someone's right or wrong but if being with someone becomes _work_ is it worth it?
> If the situation is as dire as someone here on TAM describes it..just end it...


I can't believe I'm agreeing with bugged again. 

I think one thing that has to happen in the HD/LD dynamic is both have to accept each other. Neither is right or wrong, their not bad people, or sex freaks their just themselves. That acceptance will help with the anger and resentment, then let's make a level headed, grown up decision whether or not we want to continue the relationship.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

marduk said:


> I meet a girl. My buddies all say that this girl is 'frigid' and 'doesn't like sex' or 'won't give it up' or whatever.
> 
> I date said girl anyway. I like her; I think she's cool, hot, and *frankly like the challenge.*


This is what you actually said, and I find it ew.

"Oh you guys couldn't get her to give it up, huh? Hee hee, let ME have a shot at her, I bet *I* can get her to give it up!"

Shows no care for the girl, just shows a desire to conquest.

It is also very similar to a woman thinking she can make a loser bad boy into a good man with "her love for him".

Both are gross to me.


----------



## Runs like Dog (Feb 25, 2011)

I don't have a naturally high drive or tolerance for going to Bed Bath and Beyond either. But I do it.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Faithful Wife said:


> This is what you actually said, and I find it ew.
> 
> "Oh you guys couldn't get her to give it up, huh? Hee hee, let ME have a shot at her, I bet *I* can get her to give it up!"
> 
> ...


Why?

Let's say the girl didn't like sex or was grossed out by it or had all these bad girl connotations. 

And let's say with me, even for a short period of time, those went away. So she enjoyed herself willingly, had a few doors opened for her, and at least now knows it's possible. 

Why is that a bad thing?

Sure, there was some ego involved. I'm a dude that likes to achieve. I also like a challenge and the chase. Sue me. 

But I also really, really like women and women's sexuality.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

It's just my opinion, marduk. Seeing someone as a conquest to challenge and/or puff your own ego is to me, gross.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Faithful Wife said:


> It's just my opinion, marduk. Seeing someone as a conquest to challenge and/or puff your own ego is to me, gross.


It's more complex than that. It's not one thing. 

It was never us sitting around the locker room challenging each other to bed some girl and tallying it up. 

There is an aspect of "if it's easy, I don't want it" to me. The challenge and chase is part of what triggers my attraction. I'll admit this probably has a lot to do with my LTR problems, but I don't think I ever put notches on my bedpost as conquests. It's just not who I am. 

havent you ever blown some guys mind sexually with something the never knew was possible before, and really got joy out of that?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## ocotillo (Oct 17, 2011)

Faithful Wife said:


> People should not ask each other to change at a fundamental level. They should simply agree to split up and allow each other to remain who they are. Staying together when people are incompatible just causes a lot of drama and pain.


..I wonder if my wife's vicissitudes over the years have been so atypical that I shouldn't even be in these discussions.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

marduk said:


> It's more complex than that. It's not one thing.
> 
> It was never us sitting around the locker room challenging each other to bed some girl and tallying it up.
> 
> ...


Not in the way you are describing, no. My ego isn't tied up in that kind of thing. I want mutual mind blowing experiences with adults who know what they are doing and enjoy my particular type of eroticism. I'm not their sexual guru.


----------



## WandaJ (Aug 5, 2014)

Faithful Wife said:


> It's just my opinion, marduk. Seeing someone as a conquest to challenge and/or puff your own ego is to me, gross.


I don't think that was what marduk was doing. He liked the girl, thought she was cool and challenging in a good sense and gave it a shot. He was not planning to score, boast about it and dump her. They tried, it did not work in a long term, but that's nothing unusual.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

WandaJ said:


> I don't think that was what marduk was doing. He liked the girl, thought she was cool and challenging in a good sense and gave it a shot. He was not planning to score, boast about it and dump her. They tried, it did not work in a long term, but that's nothing unusual.


Just because he didn't dump her doesn't mean the "I like the challenge" wasn't a conquest attempt. 

Again, it is just my opinion.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Faithful Wife said:


> Not in the way you are describing, no. My ego isn't tied up in that kind of thing. I want mutual mind blowing experiences with adults who know what they are doing and enjoy my particular type of eroticism. I'm not their sexual guru.


Really?

You seem to know your ****. I always pictured you as one of the kinds of the handfuls of sex goddesses I've encountered in my life that really changed the way I look at women, sexuality, and the joy of it all. 

And how subtle and nuanced and contextual the whole thing can be. 

I bet you've perhaps been this to a guy or two (or girl, not judging) without knowing it. 

You make me think even when you piss me off FW. I doubt you're not like that in real life.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

marduk said:


> Really?
> 
> You seem to know your ****. I always pictured you as one of the kinds of the handfuls of sex goddesses I've encountered in my life that really changed the way I look at women, sexuality, and the joy of it all.
> 
> ...


If we are talking about high school? Sure, probably. Because those guys had no prior experience in some certain thing, I'm sure to them I may have seemed like something from heaven.

In adult life? I just haven't been with inexperienced partners who learned things from me in the way you are describing (if I understand what you are saying correctly). Certainly I have been loved and appreciated and seen as a goddess, however, that is not the same thing you are getting at (again if I understand what you are saying correctly).

I'm not into having sex with people who aren't already at my level.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Faithful Wife said:


> Just because he didn't dump her doesn't mean the "I like the challenge" wasn't a conquest attempt.
> 
> Again, it is just my opinion.


Can you unpack that for me FW?

Why is the conquest a bad thing?

If it's because I never saw them as human beings worthy of respect, I can tell you that was rare. And non existent past the age of 16 or 17. 

If it's because I deceived them, I can also say that was rare. I may have feigned interest in things I wasn't really interested in, like people who are dating sometimes do, but I never deceived them about love or long term prospects. 

So why is it distasteful?

I say this as a guy who the first girl I fell in love with treated me as a conquest herself, and a status symbol. And I don't fault her for it, even though she broke my heart by dumping me when it no longer served her.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Faithful Wife said:


> If we are talking about high school? Sure, probably. Because those guys had no prior experience in some certain thing, I'm sure to them I may have seemed like something from heaven.
> 
> In adult life? I just haven't been with inexperienced partners who learned things from me in the way you are describing (if I understand what you are saying correctly). Certainly I have been loved and appreciated and seen as a goddess, however, that is not the same thing you are getting at (again if I understand what you are saying correctly).
> 
> I'm not into having sex with people who aren't already at my level.


No, it's exactly what I'm talking about. 

One of the reasons why my wife and I bonded strongly while dating is that while we were both flawed and damaged, we were both really forthright sexually and helped each other go places we had never gone before.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

marduk said:


> No, it's exactly what I'm talking about.
> 
> One of the reasons why my wife and I bonded strongly while dating is that while we were both flawed and damaged, we were both really forthright sexually and helped each other go places we had never gone before.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


All I can say is, there is no place I've ever feared to go, and I have not been with any lovers who had not gone places they want to go or already been through those first experiences.

Sex isn't something I have ever had any issues with nor needed anyone to assist me with, and I've stayed away from partners who needed that type of coaching. They had nothing to offer me. I'm not down for sex ed in the bedroom...too little time for that.

Not saying everyone should be like me though or that learning experiences are bad. I'm just answering the questions I think you are asking.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Faithful Wife said:


> All I can say is, there is no place I've ever feared to go, and I have not been with any lovers who had not gone places they want to go or already been through those first experiences.
> 
> Sex isn't something I have ever had any issues with nor needed anyone to assist me with, and I've stayed away from partners who needed that type of coaching. They had nothing to offer me. I'm not down for sex ed in the bedroom...too little time for that.
> 
> Not saying everyone should be like me though or that learning experiences are bad. I'm just answering the questions I think you are asking.


How did you learn if not through people?

Did you always have a highly developed idea of what you liked?

I wasn't like that. To this day, the joy of discovery is palpable, and it's almost as good if it's helping my wife discover something new as it is if I do. It's not fixed for me at all. It's a journey that changes as I grow and age.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

marduk said:


> How did you learn if not through people?


Just naturally self-aware and naturally talented. As is my husband.

You could perhaps equate it to someone who is a natural at playing a musical instrument. That person may or may not see their natural talent as a big deal or the most important part of their life. Others who are trying to learn that instrument and wish they had natural talent and place a high importance on learning it may think to themselves "sheesh you don't even know how lucky you are and here I am struggling".

I have a natural talent at gymnastics as well....perhaps the two are related? 

This doesn't mean I don't continue to improve at my natural talents as I gain experience, nor that I don't continue to learn things about myself and my talents.

It just means I have not learned those things because someone else taught them to me. Self exploration, not "other exploration of me".

Since I never competed in the big leagues in gymnastics (or sex), it was always only something I did for my own enjoyment and happiness. It is something I take full responsibility for, not expect others to "create" in me.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Faithful Wife said:


> Just naturally self-aware and naturally talented. As is my husband.
> 
> You could perhaps equate it to someone who is a natural at playing a musical instrument. That person may or may not see their natural talent as a big deal or the most important part of their life. Others who are trying to learn that instrument and wish they had natural talent and place a high importance on learning it may think to themselves "sheesh you don't even know how lucky you are and here I am struggling".
> 
> ...


So what happens when your husband gets that goofy grin and wants to try something new out? Do you take it away and think about it and try it out yourself, or do you give it a shot and learn together?

Has he really never said "I think it's fun to do x" and you had never experienced that before?

Or vice versa with something you like?

I remember the day very well a few months into our relationship when my wife said "you know, we can do things that are a little more out there if you want."

Which was great, because then we talked and just did a bunch of stuff that we both liked from past relationships or we just wanted to try.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

marduk said:


> So what happens when your husband gets that goofy grin and wants to try something new out? Do you take it away and think about it and try it out yourself, or do you give it a shot and learn together?
> 
> Has he really never said "I think it's fun to do x" and you had never experienced that before?
> 
> Or vice versa with something you like?


We are both huge freaks and were so when we met....so, no. Nothing was ever not on the table to begin with. Everything/anything was possible. We both went into this knowing what we like and want and were both open to anything the other liked and wanted. There are things we came up with together that neither had done before, but only because they are so specific to "us" that they couldn't have possibly happened with anyone else.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Recently M2 initiated. 

My body didn't respond at all. So we had 'all about her' sex. Fine by me. Sometimes sex is just a way of saying: you're important to me.

Every couple has a template for dealing with partner overtures/bids. Ours is pretty simple. If one of us makes an overture, the other makes a good faith effort to respond. 

Pretending sex is the same as going for a walk is foolish. Pretending it's the equivalent of a rountrip to the moon is equally ludicrous. 





marduk said:


> FW I think a more balanced approach is probably warranted.
> 
> My sex life is not who I am.
> 
> ...


----------



## ocotillo (Oct 17, 2011)

MEM11363 said:


> My body didn't respond at all. So we had 'all about her' sex. Fine by me. Sometimes sex is just a way of saying: you're important to me.


It sucks to get old, my friend, (And I'm right with you on that...) but kudos to you!


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Bugged,

Didn't you and your man work hard to try and make the sexual part of life - work? That's not a criticism just an observation that when the rest of it is really good, people DO work to make this part work. 

Even after he moved out, you kept seeing each other yes? 

You say he jokes about everything, hence you claim his jokes about your minimal sex life - were just that. I don't think so. I think they were his way of attempting to convey frustration in a non threatening manner. 




Bugged said:


> yeah I mean..a relationship shouldn't be _that _hard...I mean if you can't be yourself with your partner it does not make sense to me...
> I'm not saying someone's right or wrong but if being with someone becomes _work_ is it worth it?
> If the situation is as dire as someone here on TAM describes it..just end it...


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Tornado,

Now THIS I 100% agree with. For the first 20 years of the marriage I lacked empathy and understanding for the LD experience. I had a massive sense of entitlement. 

M2 sucked it up and accommodated me because the rest of it was very, very good for her. 

That changed when I crossed the line one time too many and she played 'role reversal' with me for about 3 weeks. For three weeks she pretty much put me on a 3/day schedule. Morning, noon and night. I was 'barely' able to keep up even with a daily dose of vitamin V. By the end of that 3 weeks I was a convert. 






tornado said:


> I can't believe I'm agreeing with bugged again.
> 
> I think one thing that has to happen in the HD/LD dynamic is both have to accept each other. Neither is right or wrong, their not bad people, or sex freaks their just themselves. That acceptance will help with the anger and resentment, then let's make a level headed, grown up decision whether or not we want to continue the relationship.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Fozzy (Jul 20, 2013)

MEM11363 said:


> Recently M2 initiated.
> 
> My body didn't respond at all. So we had 'all about her' sex. Fine by me. Sometimes sex is just a way of saying: you're important to me.
> 
> ...


Printed, framed, going on the wall.


----------



## T&T (Nov 16, 2012)

MEM11363 said:


> she played 'role reversal' with me for about 3 weeks. For three weeks she pretty much put me on a 3/day schedule. Morning, noon and night. I was 'barely' able to keep up even with a daily dose of vitamin V. By the end of that 3 weeks I was a convert.


I gotta hand it to her MEM. That's was ingenious!


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Faithful Wife said:


> It's just my opinion, marduk. Seeing someone as a conquest to challenge and/or puff your own ego is to me, gross.


Have to say, I'm with you on this one. The idea of using a person as a tradeable commodity, is utterly gross. I once made the mistake of dating a guy who also dated by a friend. Never, ever again!

At least some of my filters are specifically designed to screen that nonsense out.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Personal said:


> I've experienced that "wow, I didn't know it could be like that" or variations of the same inclusive of "no man had ever made me orgasm before", from a number of women I was in a sexual relationship with before and inclusive of my wife who was a virgin until she was 25.


Well, the sad truth of it is that for all the complaints about LD women, and how unadventurous or selfish LD women are, there are an awful lot of very terrible, selfish, unadventurous, or LD men out there too.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

always_alone said:


> Well, the sad truth of it is that for all the complaints about LD women, and how unadventurous or selfish LD women are, there are an awful lot of very terrible, selfish, unadventurous, or LD men out there too.


QFT.

We don't read about them here as much...but elsewhere, there are lots of women writing about this problem. And I personally know several women who are much more HD and adventurous than their SO's, suffering in sexless marriages. 

Though I feel the same about them as I do about the man HD/woman LD combo....either accept them as they are and love them as they are, or agree to split and find a better match.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

T&T,

Yes. And highly effective. She mimicked my behavior perfectly. Just amplified and intensified it. 

All I can say is that: feeling constant pressure to have more sex than you want is highly stressful. 

And FWIW, that isn't my 'norm', I just happened to make an insensitive comment at them wrong time and M2 decided that after 20 years of me being the happy - semi clueless HD spouse, it was time for me to experience the LD world for a bit. 






T&T said:


> I gotta hand it to her MEM. That's was ingenious!


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Personal,

When we met, I was experienced with all the basics. But M2 is simply a natural. I've gotten better over time but I'll never be her equal. 

One night she decided to get me rock hard, just by playing with my hand. Didn't know that was possible, turns out it very much is. 





Personal said:


> When my wife and I started having sex together she was very inexperienced, yet it has worked out well for both of us sexually. Mostly because as it turns out she has a talent for sex, is willing to try anything sexual more than once. While nothing has ever been off the table for us inclusive of a variety of fetish stuff (except for one very specific thing).
> 
> That said I never played being a sex teacher with her (and have never wanted to), because she wasn't shy or hesitant about doing anything sexually. When I met her she was resolved to consume and enjoy all sorts of sex vociferously. Since she felt she had been foolishly missing out on a lot of pleasure, because she was saving herself for marriage (when she was still Catholic).


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

MEM11363 said:


> Personal,
> 
> When we met, I was experienced with all the basics. But M2 is simply a natural. I've gotten better over time but I'll never be her equal.
> 
> One night she decided to get me rock hard, just by playing with my hand. Didn't know that was possible, turns out it very much is.


For people that have their sexuality deeply integrated into their personality, I think this kind of thing just happens. 

In a similar way that I've been highly sexual and yet never heard once that I'm creepy. 

I'm not sure this is learnable, but I suspect that if it is, it is by deeply understanding and accepting your drives. And being able to just live in your body or your head completey.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Fozzy (Jul 20, 2013)

OK, is there anyone on this site besides me that DOESN'T have a natural talent for sex? Am I the only one that has to work hard at it? I'm starting to feel like the dopey neighborhood kid that hangs out at the firehouse.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Fozzy said:


> OK, is there anyone on this site besides me that DOESN'T have a natural talent for sex? Am I the only one that has to work hard at it? I'm starting to feel like the dopey neighborhood kid that hangs out at the firehouse.


Ha! Fozzy, whether you meant it to be or not, that was endearing, and even sexy. 

I think between the right two people, bumbling, clumsy totally untalented sex can be great with each other. So does it even matter if natural talent is involved if it feels great? And especially if there is amazing intimacy, too?

It is the emotional intimacy that ends up being the most amazing part of sex, for me and my H, every time. 

Skilled sex with someone where no emotional intimacy can exist = hollow but pleasurable sex. I'll pass on that. 

Having said that...

When you have a particular talent but performing that talent is not your highest goal, it isn't that big of a deal. So probably being naturally sexually talented isn't what you think it is.

When I know people who play musical instruments, or are incredible dancers, or are amazing artists, or who speak several languages or are good skiers or great tennis players or....(I could go on with a list of talents I admire)...I feel envy of them, and at the same time I feel admiration for them in their natural talents. I do not feel they are better people or more worthy of me, though...I like our different talents. The world is full of talented people. Yay.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Marduk,
The non creepiness factor is because you don't view women as prey. 

I don't either. 

It's why I've never personally experienced starfish sex, non kissing sex, hurry up and finish sex or blatant pity sex. I'd - just - stop. The big head runs the show. 

So when HD folks talk about 'tolerating' those things I think: Your partner is learning that you care a lot more about yourself than you do about them. 

And that's why I think HD folks are often as selfish as LD people. 

And certainly some are as clueless. My favorite is the nonsense that sex is like pizza, it ranges from good to great, because there's no such thing as bad pizza or bad sex. 




marduk said:


> For people that have their sexuality deeply integrated into their personality, I think this kind of thing just happens.
> 
> In a similar way that I've been highly sexual and yet never heard once that I'm creepy.
> 
> ...


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

MEM11363 said:


> It's why I've never personally experienced starfish sex, non kissing sex, hurry up and finish sex or blatant pity sex. I'd - just - stop. The big head runs the show.
> 
> So when HD folks talk about 'tolerating' those things I think: Your partner is learning that you care a lot more about yourself than you do about them.
> 
> ...


Love this post.

Yeah I just couldn't have sex with someone I knew wasn't into it. Yuck.

And if I'm not into it, I just can't do it, either.

It's got to be a mutually desired thing, or forget it.


----------



## Holland (Aug 20, 2012)

Fozzy said:


> OK, is there anyone on this site besides me that DOESN'T have a natural talent for sex? Am I the only one that has to work hard at it? I'm starting to feel like the dopey neighborhood kid that hangs out at the firehouse.


I don't know, we are certainly getting better with lots of practice. I mean it has been well over a year since I have accidentally kicked him in the head or given him a blood nose with a head butt. Practice makes perfect.

But on the serious side I think enthusiasm and wanting both of you to have an enjoyable experience is the main thing. The talent he and I have is knowing each other very well and both being very giving. Funny thing is that we have both had to learn that taking is good too, that takes being in a very safe place IMHO.


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

Bugged: Do both of you a favor and leave for good. Kindest thing you can do is cut the cord quick and clean.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Bugged said:


> out..some people are just holding on too titgh to one partner but..*they don't really want that partner*..they want *their 2.0 version *of that partner...so...it does not work.


I think this pretty accurately captures a huge source of relationship conflict: We all want to live in a fantasy world, but what we actually have is reality. But instead of accepting and working with reality, we bang out heads against the wall trying to make reality conform to what we want.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

marduk said:


> CI may have feigned interest in things I wasn't really interested in, like people who are dating sometimes do, but I never deceived them about love or long term prospects.
> 
> So why is it distasteful?


It is common, no doubt, to pretend to be someone you are not to make someone else notice or like you. I've seen both men and women do this lots of time.

Personally, though, I find it quite distasteful: manipulative, selfish, treating people as just a means to an end. A total turn-off. But others, of course, find it perfectly natural, believing the ends, their ends, justify whatever it is they want to do. 

In the end of all, I just do my best to stick with those who I connect with, and avoid those I don't.


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

Fozzy: You are not alone. Count me and H2 among those not gifted with natural talent. H2 has a killer body but no clue what to do with it. I have a singularly unimpressive body and no skill to overcome my shortcomings (literal and figurative). Not shocking that sex was always a problem for us.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Fozz,
I'm right there with you. 




Fozzy said:


> OK, is there anyone on this site besides me that DOESN'T have a natural talent for sex? Am I the only one that has to work hard at it? I'm starting to feel like the dopey neighborhood kid that hangs out at the firehouse.


----------



## WandaJ (Aug 5, 2014)

Faithful Wife;13367994
This doesn't mean I don't continue to improve at my natural talents as I gain experience said:


> They did not teach you - but you learnt this together. Self-exploration is enhanced by others self-exploring with you. This is not vaccuum.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

WandaJ said:


> They did not teach you - but you learnt this together. Self-exploration is enhanced by others self-exploring with you. This is not vaccuum.


In the way Marduk was talking about it, no not really.

He was implying a lover saying "hey wanna try x, y, z?" and then trying it out and seeing if I liked it or not, etc. He was also implying a lover pushing boundaries and then finding out where I or we could go.

That literally has never happened to me in that way, the way that he described, or even how you described.

What I said is what I meant. 

However, this is speaking of physical intimacy.

When it comes to emotional intimacy, yes I have been schooled by a master and yes I had to learn most of it.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

FW,

When you're with someone whose responsive desire doesn't consistently kick in, you end up accepting some compromises. 





Faithful Wife said:


> Love this post.
> 
> Yeah I just couldn't have sex with someone I knew wasn't into it. Yuck.
> 
> ...


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Bugged,

You need to find his generational doppelgänger. His 25 year older twin. Because that guy will be ok with your desire level. 





Bugged said:


> I was actually referring to the ultimatums..that's a very dangerous thing to do because on one side one will never know if the effort has been made out of love or out of _fear_..and well for the person receiving the ultimatum that can be very..._distressing_...so it's a very dangerous dynamic IMO...
> I our case, no I can't say we tried very hard..because it was very clear from the beginning that every effort was an epic failure and counter productive...
> 
> yes, actually I moved out..somehow my partner is not accepting the situation...he's a wreck at the moment, we both are..looks like someone has died...
> Problem is I don't know what to do about that frustration and that frustration only pops up when everything else is working..since I moved out he said many times he doesn't really care about the lack of passion so I'm very confused..I think this is the problem as FW pointed out..some people are just holding on too titgh to one partner but..*they don't really want that partner*..they want *their 2.0 version *of that partner...so...it does not work.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

MEM11363 said:


> FW,
> 
> When you're with someone whose responsive desire doesn't consistently kick in, you end up accepting some compromises.


I can understand this...I just couldn't do it. My body simply would not cooperate.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

FW,

Eventually age is unfriendly to the standard male 'hydraulic' system. Imagine a future situation where you and F2 are playing, he has some ED AND a strong desire to please you. 

Here's the dilemma in that situation because I have had to make this choice. You can of course say: I can't do this as a one way experience. And then stop the proceedings. 

Or you can go with the flow. 

There is no right or wrong response. Only what works for you. 

M2's refrain on this topic is: Just because I don't O, doesn't mean it didn't feel good for me. And if you create the pressure of me having to O every time, you're going to kill the experience for me....





Faithful Wife said:


> I can understand this...I just couldn't do it. My body simply would not cooperate.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

I was only referring to starfish sex or a having sex with a completely disinterested partner. Of course we sometimes have one-way sex. But the one giving is still totally enthusiastic. If they weren't, I couldn't do it. That's what I meant.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Right there with you on that.

M2 doesn't always get revved up - but she's always 'into it'. 

To be totally honest - she always at least 'seems' to be into it. But that's also why I avoid pushing the frequency higher. 




Faithful Wife said:


> I was only referring to starfish sex or a having sex with a completely disinterested partner. Of course we sometimes have one-way sex. But the one giving is still totally enthusiastic. If they weren't, I couldn't do it. That's what I meant.


----------



## RAYMOND (Feb 5, 2010)

Mine always seems to be into it but I am never sure as I am always the one who instigates sex. If I leave it for a month I don't see any signs that she wants it.

What's one way sex? I'd be happy with that if she liked it. On me of course, but then I would never be sure if she really wanted me to do things to her but wouldn't say.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

RAYMOND said:


> What's one way sex?


When only one of you gets off but you're both involved. Like her giving him a standalone HJ or BJ, or him giving her standalone oral or manual.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

I don't think I'm a natural at sex. I just had good teachers.

Really, all I think I actually bring to the table is enthusiasm, an ability to let go, and an open mind.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

marduk said:


> I don't think I'm a natural at sex. I just had good teachers.
> 
> Really, all I think I actually bring to the table is enthusiasm, an ability to let go, and an open mind.


Also a penis. That helps.


----------



## ocotillo (Oct 17, 2011)

Faithful Wife said:


> Also a penis. That helps.


Yes it does


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Faithful Wife said:


> Also a penis. That helps.


Well... I like it a lot. It's been good to me.

God knows I haven't always been good to it.


----------



## SurpriseMyself (Nov 14, 2009)

Anon1111 said:


> I guess what I am saying is the LD spouse sees the corrosiveness as not being about sex, but about the HD spouse him/herself.
> 
> It's only a problem in the LD spouse's mind because the HD spouse MAKES it a problem.
> 
> ...


The LD spouse that sees things as the HD having the problem are deluding themselves. And I say this as the LD.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## DTO (Dec 18, 2011)

Bugged said:


> and accept the consequences like having 13 kids ...or 25...and counting...>


Hmmm, not sure if you are trying to take a poke at me or something. I will note, however, that employing birth control is not a sin.


----------



## Heatherknows (Aug 21, 2015)

MEM11363 said:


> FW,
> 
> When you're with someone whose responsive desire doesn't consistently kick in, you end up accepting some compromises.


Or going insane. 

I'm reading "The Sex Starved Wife" atm. I'm looking for answers.


----------



## tornado (Jan 10, 2014)

I'm gonna write a book about living with the HD-LD dynamic. I'm gonna title it 

SOL
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Heatherknows said:


> Or going insane.
> 
> I'm reading "The Sex Starved Wife" atm. I'm looking for answers.


What kind of answers?


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Heather,

So - 25 years into this adventure called marriage - this is how it looks to me. 

The most important 'drives' in a marriage are generosity and compassion. Generosity is about wanting to do for your partner and compassion is about making an effort not to hurt them. 

Compassion facilitates honesty. 

So - here's the first question, in two parts. Is your H lying to you? And if he stopped, could you handle the truth, whatever it is?










Heatherknows said:


> Or going insane.
> 
> I'm reading "The Sex Starved Wife" atm. I'm looking for answers.


----------



## Heatherknows (Aug 21, 2015)

marduk said:


> What kind of answers?


How to increase his passion so he'll want sex with me.


----------



## Heatherknows (Aug 21, 2015)

MEM11363 said:


> Heather,
> 
> So - 25 years into this adventure called marriage - this is how it looks to me.
> 
> ...


I don't think he's lying. He's not a very good liar. I'm going to take some of the blame for his low sex drive. I can be very controlling and stubborn which probably makes him feel crappy. But some men want sex even if they're upset with their wives. My husband isn't like that which has good points and bad points. The good is that he won't cheat on me because he just doesn't want sex that much. The bad is the doesn't want sex that much.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Heatherknows said:


> How to increase his passion so he'll want sex with me.


Do you have a thread for this?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Heatherknows (Aug 21, 2015)

marduk said:


> Do you have a thread for this?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


No. But I've been posting on threads that deal with this situation.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Heatherknows said:


> No. But I've been posting on threads that deal with this situation.


Might want to start one just for you. I'm happy to try to help.


----------



## Hopeful Cynic (Apr 27, 2014)

A story:

Man and woman fall in love. Man appears to have higher drive than the woman. Man is always thinking about sex, while the woman hardly ever does. Man is extremely insistent and not concerned with foreplay unless it gets him what he wants. Woman often acquiesces to sex when man initiates because it's easier than saying no. Woman grows to resent man and not enjoy sex very much. Sex dwindles in frequency because saying no slowly becomes easier for the woman than acquiescing to unpleasant sex. Man and woman have many arguments. Man insists that sex must be more frequent, that he has needs. Woman tells man that sex is painful if not done right. Woman gives man tips for turning her on. Man ignores them as it sounds like too much work. Man feels like woman doesn't desire him, and now wants him to jump through all these hoops just to get some action. One night, woman wakes up and is all over man. Man says "Yeah! Why can't it be like this all the time? That's what I'm talking about!" Turns out woman had awoken from a sexy dream about man. She had dreamed all the foreplay she wanted from the man and was ready to go without him having to do any real work.

Learning experience for sure.


----------



## moco82 (Jul 16, 2012)

Voters in North Carolina know who's a natural in sex. Deez Nuts.


----------



## SheSux (May 12, 2014)

You won't *not* get laid? You're "getting laid one way or another"? Self-absorbed sex addict.




thread the needle said:


> Apparently not.
> 
> Sexless marriage like all things in life is the result of calculations made and a power struggle similar to "s(he) who has the gold makes the rules" yet it's "whomever holds the power gets their way"
> 
> ...


----------



## SheSux (May 12, 2014)

Your contradictory post makes no sense. You can't "be happy to" to do something then turn around and say, you "wouldn't enjoy it." No wonder she shies from you.





Buddy400 said:


> That's the thing.......
> 
> If my wife said it gave her great pleasure to see me hop around on one foot for 15 minutes a day, I'd be happy to do it. I'd be happy to give her a massage every night although I wouldn't enjoy it.
> 
> Sex seems to be considered different for some reason (it's *her* body!). Well, it's my body jumping on one foot and my hands getting tired.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

SheSux said:


> You won't *not* get laid? You're "getting laid one way or another"? Self-absorbed sex addict.


I struggle with that. I went through something like that, and although what he is saying is extreme, it's also in the direction of what worked for us.

If I was willing to accept a life without passion in it, life became passionless. If I was willing to to work really hard to make myself better, and she responded, then life had more passion. If I did that, and she didn't respond, and I left to find someone that wanted that with me, then life had more passion.

That's the point. Some people need good sex to be happy. I'm one of them. I'm willing to divorce over getting it. Not in the sense of "have sex with me tonight or I'm leaving you" but definitely in the sense of "this is in general a priority for me to stay married."

Just like it's a priority to have fidelity, compassion, respect, trust... All that.


----------



## farsidejunky (Mar 19, 2014)

SheSux said:


> You won't *not* get laid? You're "getting laid one way or another"? Self-absorbed sex addict.


Interesting. 

Perhaps you could she some light on how you see sex in a marriage.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

marduk said:


> I struggle with that. I went through something like that, and although what he is saying is extreme, it's also in the direction of what worked for us.
> 
> If I was willing to accept a life without passion in it, life became passionless. _If I was willing to to work really hard to make myself better, and she responded,_ then life had more passion. If I did that, and she didn't respond, and I left to find someone that wanted that with me, then life had more passion.
> 
> ...


This. Twice this. Re:bolded and this is one of my MN.U.T.s that I am holding onto. And I am going to attempt to achieve this by italics NOT by whining and picking fights with her to put out more.


----------



## BetrayedDad (Aug 8, 2013)

farsidejunky said:


> Interesting.
> 
> Perhaps you could she some light on how you see sex in a marriage.


Based on the tone, I'm going with, "for procreation purposes only."


----------



## BetrayedDad (Aug 8, 2013)

If a woman can become a WAW because a man "doesn't pay enough attention to her" then...

I really don't see how it's any different than a man walking away from a sexless marriage.

His needs, her needs. Simple as that.


----------

