# Wifely duty



## trexonabike (Jul 25, 2017)

So I have been pondering this question based on current events and climate, and my own situation. I will have been married 25 years this summer. Our sex life has been near nonexistent since the birth of our second child 18 years ago. While I still lust after her like I did when we first met, she had zero interest in me. I've realized she actively avoids getting into situations where I might make a move and her own way to initiate sex is always started with "I guess its been a while, you're getting cranky. " I work, she's been a sahm. We get along great as partners and friends but there is zero intimacy. 

That's the background for this question. If a woman has sex with a man because she feels coerced or threatened - not physically threatened, but that there could be negative repercussions to not having sex, that's sexual assault if not rape. 
i know she is only having sex with me because 1. I get cranky and irritable and its the only way to stop that. 2. She's worried I might leave her and I'm the sole source of income. 3. It's easier to give into my request for sex and just get it over with. 4. Some other woman has hit on me (actually does happen)
I know this is happening since she makes it very clear. So what is the the difference between this interaction and someone committing sexual assault? This is really eating away at me. It's been a couple months since the last time we had sex and based on past history she will be realizing its time for this chore. But all I can think is if we do, it's really not any different than a sexual assault. 

Thoughts?


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

You don't need to be married to be friends, but I suppose divorcing her just might preclude future friendship. Tough scenario. And costly, since she's been a SAHM.

There is no good solution, and coercion is definitely unethical. I'd suggest asking her if she'd be okay if you outsourced this part of the relationship, and see what she says. It's cheaper than divorce, but could lead there anyway.


----------



## Tatsuhiko (Jun 21, 2016)

I think it's quite a stretch to call something "rape" when the partner agrees to it. Are we really not allowed to broach the subject of divorce in a sexless marriage? Are we not even allowed to be angry or frustrated in that situation? I think you're looking at this through feminist goggles. If a wife told her disinterested husband that she planned to divorce him if their sex life didn't improve, would the wife really be "raping" her husband? No. 

Wives and husbands are supposed to related to each other sexually. If that component is not there, it's arguable that you don't have a marriage anymore. If you don't have a marriage, it's perfectly reasonable to demand a divorce.


----------



## WilliamM (Mar 14, 2017)

...


----------



## Maxwedge 413 (Apr 16, 2014)

Your marriage is a joke so instead of getting emotional I'll just put this out there - You are the Boss, and she is an employee of yours. You put money into her account if she does what you need. And you need sex. She can do her job, or she can seek other employment.


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

Maxwedge 413 said:


> Your marriage is a joke so instead of getting emotional I'll just put this out there - You are the Boss, and she is an employee of yours. You put money into her account if she does what you need. And you need sex. She can do her job, or she can seek other employment.


Shouldn't there at least be one bad performance review on record?


----------



## Primrose (Mar 4, 2015)

Just out curiosity, what is the purpose of being a SAHM when your children are fully grown? This is not a slight at SAHM's because I AM one currently to an 11, 8, and 2 year old. 

But when your children are out of the house (or damn near close), why not spend your time doting on the person that makes your life of leisure possible (assuming there are no young children in the home)? That's how I see it, anyways. She is taking you for granted, and you are letting her by not demanding more. I do not mean to demand literal sex from her, but maybe an ultimatum is what's best at this point? Act like you are IN love with me or get out. 

But then again, what are the alimony laws where you live?


----------



## BioFury (Jul 9, 2015)

trexonabike said:


> So I have been pondering this question based on current events and climate, and my own situation. I will have been married 25 years this summer. Our sex life has been near nonexistent since the birth of our second child 18 years ago. While I still lust after her like I did when we first met, she had zero interest in me. I've realized she actively avoids getting into situations where I might make a move and her own way to initiate sex is always started with "I guess its been a while, you're getting cranky. " I work, she's been a sahm. We get along great as partners and friends but there is zero intimacy.
> 
> That's the background for this question. If a woman has sex with a man because she feels coerced or threatened - not physically threatened, but that there could be negative repercussions to not having sex, that's sexual assault if not rape.
> i know she is only having sex with me because 1. I get cranky and irritable and its the only way to stop that. 2. She's worried I might leave her and I'm the sole source of income. 3. It's easier to give into my request for sex and just get it over with. 4. Some other woman has hit on me (actually does happen)
> ...


If you don't pay your mortgage, they will evict you. Does that make it extortion?

You should read "No More Mr. Nice Guy", and "His Needs, Her Needs". You shouldn't tolerate your wife's blatant neglect of your needs. You should sit her down and tell her that you're not happy with the way things are, and that you need things to change. Offer counseling, and ask her if she'd go with you. If she rejects all your suggestions, and ignores your request for change, then you would either need to accept not having sex for the rest of your life, or start introducing consequences for her neglect.


----------



## Maxwedge 413 (Apr 16, 2014)

Cletus said:


> Shouldn't there at least be one bad performance review on record?


Mrs Wedge works in a corporate structure where lazy people are given warning letter after warning letter while collecting months of salary for very poor, if any, performance. I on the other hand am free to flatly fire my employees if I see fit. I have rarely done this, but it has happened. Mrs Trexonabike is severely lacking in job performance. Her metrics are way down, and she's starting to hurt the company. Time for a "come to Jesus" moment, or hit the bricks baby! If you can't do your basic job, you will be replaced. And don't use me as a referral.


----------



## WilliamM (Mar 14, 2017)

...


----------



## chillymorn69 (Jun 27, 2016)

WilliamM said:


> My wife is a Stay At Home Mary.
> 
> I make x dollars a year. She can make y dollars a year. With just my x dollars a year income we pay z dollars a year in taxes, feds, state, SS, you name the greedy so and so government glad-hand. With x+y income we pay z+more in taxes.
> 
> ...


Does stay at home happy Mary desire her go to work husband william?

If so you don't have a horse in this race.


----------



## SunCMars (Feb 29, 2016)

WilliamM said:


> I must add as a disclaimer that I am very aggressive, myself. I always lived by no means no, except with my wife. When we were dating I told her what I wanted in a wife, and it was my way or the highway. *After we got married I learned that no is not her safe word.*


How could a Martian not agree with this? :grin2:


Humor aside, sex 'given' as a rare treat?
No thank you..

Otherwise....
Otherwise she had better be a damn good cook.

Oh, boy, I am in trouble now!


----------



## MartinBeck (Jan 19, 2017)

In general I think there’s something very toxic about modern American motherhood and it’s all too easy for women to immerse themselves in isolating and infantilizing roles, esp if they only socialize with other SAHMs and don’t engage socially with other non-Moms in work or other spheres. It leads to loss of self and loss of identity as a sexual independent person.

There’s also a tremendous moral hazard for a spouse (M or F) who have been out of the workforce for a long time and supported by the working spouse. They can disengage from the relationship and not provide anything, knowing that they are protected from any consequences and the working spouse is unlikely to rock the boat due to the financial costs of a divorce.


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

Sorry to say it, but I think you should be ashamed of your self for accepting your situation. Life is meant to be enjoyed. We are only on this earth for a short time. Why spend it worrying about this kind of crap. Tell her to put up or get out. 
I was married 24 years and lived much the life that you do. In fact I was told that none of my wife's friends enjoyed having sex with their husbands, it was just something they did to keep the peace. That may be true. But I have since found out that many women simply enjoy sex and will be more than willing to have it with the right guy.


----------



## WilliamM (Mar 14, 2017)

...


----------



## FeministInPink (Sep 13, 2012)

@trexonabike You are in a difficult position. You can't force your wife to have sex with you, and coercion feels wrong to you, and the "duty" sex she gives you isn't even close to satisfying. 

I agree with @BioFury. First, read No More Mr Nice Guy (if you Google it, you can find a free pdf copy to read) and Married Man Sex Love Primer (can be found on Amazon). While reading these, start researching sex-positive marriage counselors, and make an appointment for the two of you. Then, sit her down and tell her that you want a real marriage, which includes physical intimacy with not just a willing partner (because she will get defensive and say that she has given you sex), but with an enthusiastic partner as a joyful part of your marriage. Say that you will never force or coerce her into sex, but you will also no longer accept her overtures for obligatory, duty sex. [Which, between you and me, reeks of contempt on her part.] Say that you also refuse the accept the current state of your "marriage," which I put into quotes because it is a marriage only in name only. And then tell her that you've scheduled an appointment with a marriage counselor, and she can either join you at counseling and begin the work of rebuilding your marriage, or she can choose not to join you, in which case you will begin drawing up divorce papers for what you hope can be an amicable and speedy affair, so you will both be free to find someone who is a better fit.

I know you don't want to divorce... but if that is the option she chooses, it means she checked out a long a time ago, and there is literally no marriage left to save anyway.

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk


----------



## WilliamM (Mar 14, 2017)

FeministInPink said:


> @trexonabike <snipp>
> 
> I know you don't want to divorce... but if that is the option she chooses, it means she checked out a long a time ago, and there is literally no marriage left to save anyway.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk


Yes.

I admit I have a bias about believing FeministInPink gives good advice.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Well. Your marriage is extremely toxic.

According to your post, your wife is not feasible as a mate.

Maybe a housekeeper or babysitter but certainly not a wife.

Are you objectively looking at yourself as well?

I give a lot and require a lot in return.

I value myself but value my mate as much or more.

I wouldn't tolerate your circumstances for 18 days much less, 18 years.

You should probably do a complete breakdown of your marriage and examine how much is useless and broken.

I'm pretty sure you don't have the full picture of why your wife is behaving the way she is towards you sexually.

Get into counseling and give her a good platform to communicate as well as to be examined.

You both probably need to not only learn effective communication but how to be vulnerable to examination and to learn and grow.

These issues are rarely one sided.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

trexonabike said:


> So I have been pondering this question based on current events and climate, and my own situation. I will have been married 25 years this summer. Our sex life has been near nonexistent since the birth of our second child 18 years ago. While I still lust after her like I did when we first met, she had zero interest in me. I've realized she actively avoids getting into situations where I might make a move and her own way to initiate sex is always started with "I guess its been a while, you're getting cranky. " I work, she's been a sahm. We get along great as partners and friends but there is zero intimacy.
> 
> That's the background for this question. If a woman has sex with a man because she feels coerced or threatened - not physically threatened, but that there could be negative repercussions to not having sex, that's sexual assault if not rape.
> i know she is only having sex with me because 1. I get cranky and irritable and its the only way to stop that. 2. She's worried I might leave her and I'm the sole source of income. 3. It's easier to give into my request for sex and just get it over with. 4. Some other woman has hit on me (actually does happen)
> ...


No its not sexual assault, not sure where you got that idea from. You are not forcing her, she is making that decision as she should as your wife. Otherwise every time that a husband or wife has sex with their spouse even though at that time they may not 'feel' like it, it would be assault, which it clearly isn't. I dont see anywhere where you are threatening her or forcing her. 
An assault is when someone is clearly saying no, and maybe even fighting you off, and you are forcing yourself on her. 

However, its not nice for you to think that she is only having sex to keep you quiet, and then only very occasionally. 

Have you thought of marriage counselling? Unless you do something about this it will never change. You need to made it very clear that this cant go on and let her know how desperately unhappy you are.


----------



## alexm (Nov 29, 2008)

Diana7 said:


> No its not sexual assault, not sure where you got that idea from. You are not forcing her, she is making that decision as she should as your wife. Otherwise every time that a husband or wife has sex with their spouse even though at that time they may not 'feel' like it, it would be assault, which it clearly isn't. I dont see anywhere where you are threatening her or forcing her.
> An assault is when someone is clearly saying no, and maybe even fighting you off, and you are forcing yourself on her.
> 
> However, its not nice for you to think that she is only having sex to keep you quiet, and then only very occasionally.
> ...


It's not assault, but I can understand how he feels about it. His wife does not want to have sex with him, for the sake of having sex. She has sex with him because she feels she has to (every now and again) and/or out of some minor jealousy/protectiveness when he gets hit on.

I wouldn't want to have sex with someone who doesn't want to have sex with me, either. And this is where he's coming from.

Assault, no. Mind****, yes.


----------



## Thor (Oct 31, 2011)

She's giving "husband management" sex. When necessary to keep you from leaving her, she'll dish up just enough.

You could call it "wifely duty" or "ceiling inspector" sex if you want. But it comes down to the fact she'd be happy not to ever have sex with you again, but she has to in order to get something she wants. Which would be financial security, the comfort of the home she is accustomed to, social status of being married, avoiding divorce while the kids are young, etc.

Empty Nest divorce is a very real phenomenon. Your situation looks like a classic case in the making.

Does she seem to enjoy sex when you do have it?


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

Thor said:


> She's giving "husband management" sex. When necessary to keep you from leaving her, she'll dish up just enough.
> 
> You could call it "wifely duty" or *"ceiling inspector" *sex if you want. But it comes down to the fact she'd be happy not to ever have sex with you again, but she has to in order to get something she wants. Which would be financial security, the comfort of the home she is accustomed to, social status of being married, avoiding divorce while the kids are young, etc.
> 
> ...


I hadn't heard that one before. How marvelously descriptive. Even comes with a rather distressing visual.


----------



## toblerone (Oct 18, 2016)

trexonabike said:


> So I have been pondering this question based on current events and climate, and my own situation. I will have been married 25 years this summer. Our sex life has been near nonexistent since the birth of our second child 18 years ago. While I still lust after her like I did when we first met, she had zero interest in me. I've realized she actively avoids getting into situations where I might make a move and her own way to initiate sex is always started with "I guess its been a while, you're getting cranky. " I work, she's been a sahm. We get along great as partners and friends but there is zero intimacy.


The situation you're in sounds pretty crappy.

What steps have you taken to turn it around besides posting about it 18 years later?

I mean, she's clearly avoidant. Have you figured out why? Have you changed your approach at all?


----------



## Yeswecan (Jul 25, 2014)

trexonabike said:


> So I have been pondering this question based on current events and climate, and my own situation. I will have been married 25 years this summer. Our sex life has been near nonexistent since the birth of our second child 18 years ago. While I still lust after her like I did when we first met, she had zero interest in me. I've realized she actively avoids getting into situations where I might make a move and her own way to initiate sex is always started with "I guess its been a while, you're getting cranky. " I work, she's been a sahm. We get along great as partners and friends but there is zero intimacy.
> 
> That's the background for this question. If a woman has sex with a man because she feels coerced or threatened - not physically threatened, but that there could be negative repercussions to not having sex, that's sexual assault if not rape.
> i know she is only having sex with me because 1. I get cranky and irritable and its the only way to stop that. 2. She's worried I might leave her and I'm the sole source of income. 3. It's easier to give into my request for sex and just get it over with. 4. Some other woman has hit on me (actually does happen)
> ...


For me, if my W did not want sex with me or felt it was duty sex(just about all the time) , I would not want it. Trying not to be crude but, for me, that is like sex with a blow up doll. No thanks. I would tell my wife as such. You have needs(normal needs) that are not enthusiastically met. And that is BS.


----------



## Yeswecan (Jul 25, 2014)

Thor said:


> She's giving "husband management" sex. When necessary to keep you from leaving her, she'll dish up just enough.
> 
> You could call it "wifely duty" or "ceiling inspector" sex if you want. But it comes down to the fact she'd be happy not to ever have sex with you again, but she has to in order to get something she wants. Which would be financial security, the comfort of the home she is accustomed to, social status of being married, avoiding divorce while the kids are young, etc.
> 
> ...


Excellent observation!!!


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Ok. I'm loving the "ceiling inspector" sex term!

Thank you @Thor! LOL!


----------



## WilliamM (Mar 14, 2017)

...


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

That is not assault, that's silly.

It's creepy and bad sex, but it's not assault.

As far as what to do - you are both adults and your kids are grown.... Do whatever you want.

Do whatever you want and be prepared to face the ramifications.

If she doesn't want to have sex with you and doesn't like it, then why would you want to be with her?

Yes a divorce will cost you; so will staying. She isn't living there free of cost now y'know. It will cost whether you stay or go.... So might as well do what you want.

If she doesn't want to be with you and wouldn't do it if you didn't big her for it, then does it matter to her if you either pack up and leave, or if you stay and get the sex elsewhere?

Does it really matter either way?

It's been 18 years - does it matter any more?

Do whatever you want and live with the outcome.


----------



## Windwalker (Mar 19, 2014)

Empty nest divorce
ceiling inspector
Puss pacifier

Shall we go on?


ETA: Why do you put up with it OP?
If you feel it's degrading, then turn it down.


----------



## harrybrown (May 22, 2013)

you posted last summer. Nothing has changed. How old are your two kids now?

Hope you do something like meet with a sex therapist soon.

life is too short.


----------



## Personal (Jan 16, 2014)

Thor said:


> You could call it "wifely duty" or *"ceiling inspector"* sex if you want.


I am going to use that one, thanks.


----------



## CuddleBug (Nov 26, 2012)

trexonabike said:


> So I have been pondering this question based on current events and climate, and my own situation. I will have been married 25 years this summer. Our sex life has been near nonexistent since the birth of our second child 18 years ago. While I still lust after her like I did when we first met, she had zero interest in me. I've realized she actively avoids getting into situations where I might make a move and her own way to initiate sex is always started with "I guess its been a while, you're getting cranky. " I work, she's been a sahm. We get along great as partners and friends but there is zero intimacy.
> 
> That's the background for this question. If a woman has sex with a man because she feels coerced or threatened - not physically threatened, but that there could be negative repercussions to not having sex, that's sexual assault if not rape.
> i know she is only having sex with me because 1. I get cranky and irritable and its the only way to stop that. 2. She's worried I might leave her and I'm the sole source of income. 3. It's easier to give into my request for sex and just get it over with. 4. Some other woman has hit on me (actually does happen)
> ...




- A wife is to take care of her hubby's needs as her own and she is not her own when married and vise versa.


- It sounds like she got you, married, after she had the kids then her true self came out, she is really non physical LD. That means she can go very long periods of no sex and physical intimacy.


- Sounds like you still have a healthy sex drive HD and want sex with her often to this day.


- She couldn't care less is my take and that's not a loving wife.


- A woman / wife should never have sex with her man just to shut him up and keep the relationship going. She should want sex with her man often because she actually finds him hot and desires him.


- If sex is a chore to her, she should be single and quit wasting his time.


----------



## Satya (Jun 22, 2012)

Duty sex, pity sex, appeasement sex.

They're all crappy means of maintaining the status quo.

I agree with @Primrose... Why isn't she working now that the kids are grown?


----------



## SunCMars (Feb 29, 2016)

God created Testosterone to torture men. 
And to make women, God Awful powerful.

On the flip side....

God created a complicated, uncooperative Erection.
Made this to drive both Adam and Eve to madness, in Reflection.


----------



## 247769 (May 18, 2016)

Although sex is very important, there's more to love than sex however sexual refusal unrelated to medical reasons creates a huge wall between a couple that if not addressed will result in resentment which can lead to divorce or unfaithfulness. Even not meeting the others sexual needs with medical reasons can be too much for some to handle. I cannot stress the importance of communication between couples. In reality that's all a marriage counselor does is force communication isn't it?

Sent from my XT1635-01 using Tapatalk


----------



## SunCMars (Feb 29, 2016)

peterrabbit said:


> Although sex is very important, there's more to love than sex however sexual refusal unrelated to medical reasons creates a huge wall between a couple that if not addressed will result in resentment which can lead to divorce or unfaithfulness. Even not meeting the others sexual needs with medical reasons can be too much for some to handle. I cannot stress the importance of communication between couples. In reality that's all a marriage counselor does is force communication isn't it?
> 
> Sent from my XT1635-01 using Tapatalk


Yes, steer the bull, coax the cow.

Avoid stepping in the bull and cow poop. BS,CS.

Not be the dung beetle, rolling the round turd up the hill, never cresting the couple's shared wall.


----------



## 247769 (May 18, 2016)

SunCMars said:


> Yes, steer the bull, coax the cow.
> 
> Avoid stepping in the bull and cow poop. BS,CS.
> 
> Not be the dung beetle, rolling the round turd up the hill, never cresting the couple's shared wall.


I'm not sure what this means lol

Sent from my XT1635-01 using Tapatalk


----------



## SunCMars (Feb 29, 2016)

peterrabbit said:


> I'm not sure what this means lol
> 
> Sent from my XT1635-01 using Tapatalk


A marital counselors technique.

A means to an end, a good end for all.


----------



## 247769 (May 18, 2016)

SunCMars said:


> A marital counselors technique.
> 
> A means to an end, a good end for all.


Oh I see, thanks for clarifying

Sent from my XT1635-01 using Tapatalk


----------



## Tony Conrad (Oct 7, 2013)

I think wifely duty says it all. We should never deny our spouses sexual needs. If your needs are denied you are vulnerable to other women. That's only natural. If you both agreed that you do not want sex that is something else, but if one wants the other should play ball willingly without begrudging. I think she is neglecting her wifely duty. You are married to her and she should be your sexual outlet. This is fundemental. Nothing to do with no means no. She is your wife.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

Tony Conrad said:


> I think wifely duty says it all. We should never deny our spouses sexual needs. If your needs are denied you are vulnerable to other women. That's only natural. If you both agreed that you do not want sex that is something else, but if one wants the other should play ball willingly without begrudging. I think she is neglecting her wifely duty. You are married to her and she should be your sexual outlet. This is fundemental. Nothing to do with no means no. She is your wife.



While I think calling it assault is a pretty wild stretch, if a spouse clearly does not want a sexual relationship, isn't their spouse somewhat ethically obligated to not pressure them and not pursue sex with them?? 

Now whether to divorce them, seek sex elsewhere or suck it up and live with it is another question, but aren't we all somewhat obligated to not make them do something they do not want?

I don't really care what the Old Testament says. No one in the free world has complete dominion over another person's body. Just because someone is married, does not mean that they are obligated to have sex with someone they do not want - even if that person is their spouse. 

Now that rejected spouse has the right to dissolve to divorce and find someone else of course. But just because one is married does not give them the right to have sex with someone that does not want them.


----------



## CuddleBug (Nov 26, 2012)

oldshirt said:


> While I think calling it assault is a pretty wild stretch, if a spouse clearly does not want a sexual relationship, isn't their spouse somewhat ethically obligated to not pressure them and not pursue sex with them??
> 
> Now whether to divorce them, seek sex elsewhere or suck it up and live with it is another question, but aren't we all somewhat obligated to not make them do something they do not want?
> 
> ...




- Then the uncompromising LD spouse should never of got married in the first place and basically lied and deceived their other half........selfish behavior.


- Old Testament means a man is not his own anymore and a woman is not her own anymore, after getting married. They are now to take care of each others needs as their own and they are no longer their own, meaning single. Today, many think that after getting married, they still can do whatever they want regardless of how it effects their spouse. Wrong.


- If the LD spouse isn't taking care of their other spouses needs, then that LD spouse needs to move on.


- I a HD spouse takes care of the LD spouses needs (romance, emotional intimacy, closeness) then the LD spouse should be taking care of the HD spouses needs (physicality and sex). It goes both ways.


----------



## Bobby5000 (Oct 19, 2011)

Some suggestions, 

1. Do not approach the subject of sex alone, it should be discussed with other issues. You want to avoid, it's not you, it's me, I 'm just not in the mood, that aside we need 30,000 for a new kitchen. 
2. Make a point of being distant, start changing schedules of things she likes. Mention you are "not in the mood" to go to her mother's for their usual dinner, you can't go to dinner Wednesday night. Come and go at different times, vary your schedule. You want her to want to start the discussion, and she needs to understand this is a referendum on the marriage. 
3. Then you can have an overall candid discussion, are there things that bother her, things she wants different in the bedroom. 
4. When she says there can be a good marriage and sex is not important, ask her if you can have a girlfriend a couple of nights a week.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

Responses in bold below.







CuddleBug said:


> - Then the uncompromising LD spouse should never of got married in the first place and basically lied and deceived their other half........selfish behavior.
> 
> *Let's not confuse LD with not wanting to have sex with a spouse at all. This is a case of the spouse openly declaring that she no longer wants to have sex with him anymore. It's not a case of not being in the mood at any particular moment.
> 
> ...


----------



## Tony Conrad (Oct 7, 2013)

It is pointless forcing anyone. I still think a spouse doesn't have a right to withold sex from the other. Marriage itself is a comittment to physical relations as well. What person would go through with a marriage if they knew that the other would withold sex? I don't think hardly anyone would committ under those circumstances. It is a betrayal in my mind, provided they are in good physical health.


----------



## JustTheWife (Nov 1, 2017)

Wow that's an interesting question! I guess you can turn it around and say that she's using it to coerce you into providing the things that you provide. Rather than you threatening to take things away.


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

It is somewhat amusing to read about the OP complaining about duty sex and then see all the "it is her duty' to have sex with him posts.


----------



## ChargingCharlie (Nov 14, 2012)

Tony Conrad said:


> It is pointless forcing anyone. I still think a spouse doesn't have a right to withold sex from the other. Marriage itself is a comittment to physical relations as well. What person would go through with a marriage if they knew that the other would withold sex? I don't think hardly anyone would committ under those circumstances. It is a betrayal in my mind, provided they are in good physical health.


Exactly - marriage isn't intended to tie two roommates together. There needs to be a physical component. Granted, life has a way of complicating things (kids, age, etc), but absent a physical issue there's no reason to deny your partner the pleasure of sex (unless both agree that sex isn't important).

I'm in a marriage where we haven't had sex in two years - my wife, while her attitude has greatly improved in other areas (not being stressed out over little stuff), she still had no desire for sex, and doesn't want to see if there's anything that she can do to fix it. My wife doesn't say no - it's just her actions. She's always mentioning how tired she is, how her head hurts, etc. Posted this in another thread - we are kid free this weekend so that we can attend a friends wedding. We'll both be dressed up and look good, and I'll be turned on looking at her. However, I am almost certain that when we get in the car to head home, the first thing that she will mention is how tired she is and can't wait to get into her PJ's and go to sleep - she's not turning me down per se, but it's her way to forestall any sex talk. I could insist that we have sex, and she'll comply, but that will be strictly duty sex that she just wants to get over with - I can do without that. I want a willing partner - not someone who feels that they're doing me a favor. It doesn't help that her friends all seem to be the same way from what i can gather - none have sex with their husbands more than a couple times a year, and they're all happy about it. It's constantly reinforces her belief that sex isn't important - "none of my friends have sex, so we're a normal couple"


----------



## CuddleBug (Nov 26, 2012)

- A LD spouse is someone who has a low sex drive due to how they were raised, faith, weight, insecurity, forgotten abuse, bad ex, etc. That's usually the balk of LD's but its up to them to get help and deal with it. If they do nothing, they should remain single and not carry their baggage over to their marriage and HD spouses.


- Yes, on rare occasions a LD spouse may get help or actually have that light bulb moment and get it........we can all dream the dream.


- Of course everyone has the right to not be forced to have sex. Obviously. But you missed the point. When I said a man or woman are no longer their own after getting married, what that means, is they are not their own anymore "single". They are to now make the effort and take are of each others needs as their own. That's part of being married. Taking care of each others needs as your own, even when its not something you want to do. Cuddling, Romance, Talking, Sex, Going away for the night / weekend, etc. One spouse may not wish to do this but the other one does, so that spouse still does this out of love. See? The next time the shoe is on the other foot and the favor will be returned. Doing things for each other out of love and not when you want to do it is part of a loving and giving marriage. Today, western world, this doesn't apply anymore and what's our divorce rate? 50% higher?


- Having intimacy and sex with your spouse is not a chore, task, etc. If that's the case, that LD spouse should be single and quit wasting their other halves time. In a loving marriage that means, emotionally, romantically, and physical / sexually.


- What usually happens is the HD spouse is here and doing anything and everything, advice, reading, you name to try and get through to their LD spouse. But in the end, the LD does little to nothing and the HD does all the work and kills off their sexual intimacy. That's not a loving marriage, that's unchanging and selfish.


- Their sex life for the last 18 years has been near non existent.......SHE KILLED IT.


- She did NOTHING, go to the family doctor and get meds for her hormones after the last child.......go to a gym, eat healthier........make the effort to get the sex drive back.......but again, SHE DID NOTHING for 18 years.........it's ALL on her.


- He still wants her sexually after all this time and she knows it. Disgusting on her part. No excuses there. That's a bad wife and abusive on her end.


----------



## CuddleBug (Nov 26, 2012)

oldshirt said:


> Responses in bold below.




- The HD spouse will be doing everything they can to try and get a scrap of sex from their LD uncompromising spouse and that's not a loving marriage.


- That is not taking care of each others needs marriage. That is its my way or the high way......


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

ChargingCharlie said:


> Exactly - marriage isn't intended to tie two roommates together. There needs to be a physical component. Granted, life has a way of complicating things (kids, age, etc), but absent a physical issue there's no reason to deny your partner the pleasure of sex (unless both agree that sex isn't important).
> 
> I'm in a marriage where we haven't had sex in two years - my wife, while her attitude has greatly improved in other areas (not being stressed out over little stuff), she still had no desire for sex, and doesn't want to see if there's anything that she can do to fix it. My wife doesn't say no - it's just her actions. She's always mentioning how tired she is, how her head hurts, etc. Posted this in another thread - we are kid free this weekend so that we can attend a friends wedding. We'll both be dressed up and look good, and I'll be turned on looking at her. However, I am almost certain that when we get in the car to head home, the first thing that she will mention is how tired she is and can't wait to get into her PJ's and go to sleep - she's not turning me down per se, but it's her way to forestall any sex talk. I could insist that we have sex, and she'll comply, but that will be strictly duty sex that she just wants to get over with - I can do without that. I want a willing partner - not someone who feels that they're doing me a favor. It doesn't help that her friends all seem to be the same way from what i can gather - none have sex with their husbands more than a couple times a year, and they're all happy about it. It's constantly reinforces her belief that sex isn't important - "none of my friends have sex, so we're a normal couple"


Charlie, are you saying that you agree that sex isn't important (in the case of your marriage)? I was told the same thing by my wife "none of my friends enjoy having sex with their husbands, it is just something they do to keep the peace". I have since found out that is simply not true of most women. Lots of women want and enjoy sex. I enjoy sex. I wanted more of it when I was married. 
My ex was ok with never having sex, and seldom did unless I talked to her about how long it had been. That was typically met with and angry "I can't believe you even keep track!" Then if I listed all the times and things that had happened in the interim, she might have "allowed" me five minutes or grudgingly submit to having sex (note I was not looking for submission, I was looking for willing and eager participation).
I always wondered what the heck she was talking about. Nations and empires have gone to war over sex, people are willing to risk fame and fortune to have it. So I thought either there was something wrong with me (bad lover) or something wrong with her. Since I had her on a pedestal, I concluded it must just be me.
Again, I have found out that was not the case.
Your situation may be "normal" but only if you allow it to be. I think a lot of people remain in sexless or virtually sexless marriages because they just give up this part of themselves.


----------



## Livvie (Jan 20, 2014)

CuddleBug said:


> - A LD spouse is someone who has a low sex drive due to how they were raised, faith, weight, insecurity, forgotten abuse, bad ex, etc. That's usually the balk of LD's but its up to them to get help and deal with it. If they do nothing, they should remain single and not carry their baggage over to their marriage and HD spouses.
> 
> 
> - Yes, on rare occasions a LD spouse may get help or actually have that light bulb moment and get it........we can all dream the dream.
> ...


I agree with all of this except the last point. It's a bad partner, for sure. I don't believe it's abusive. It's not loving, giving, or mutual, but it's not abusive. It IS not meeting your spouse's needs because you aren't on the same page as far as wanting sex. A man or woman in this situation is choosing to stay in this situation. Day after day they are choosing the relationship. It's not abusive. It's just providing a bad sexual relationship to spouse that spouse is choosing to stay in day after day after day.


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

Livvie said:


> I agree with all of this except the last point. It's a bad partner, for sure. I don't believe it's abusive. It's not loving, giving, or mutual, but it's not abusive. It IS not meeting your spouse's needs because you aren't on the same page as far as wanting sex. A man or woman in this situation is choosing to stay in this situation. Day after day they are choosing the relationship. It's not abusive. It's just providing a bad sexual relationship to spouse that spouse is choosing to stay in day after day after day.


I agree with this^^^^. The OP's wife isn't being abusive unless one is of the mind set that they are entitled to sex by virtue of being married. I think it is reasonable to expect sex by virtue of being married, but no one is entitled to another persons thoughts or actions. I also disagree with the idea that you stop being an individual once you get married. That is a recipe for disaster, resentment, anger and real abuse.
In the case of the OP, as Livvie has said, he chooses to accept this. He can also choose not to accept it. That does not mean he can or should force or coerce his W to comply or submit to his wishes, desires and.or demands. But what he can do is clearly communicate with her (with or through a counselor if need be). Should she choose to ignore or disagree, then she has made her choice and it is up to the OP to decide either to accept it or move on.


----------



## CuddleBug (Nov 26, 2012)

Livvie said:


> I agree with all of this except the last point. It's a bad partner, for sure. I don't believe it's abusive. It's not loving, giving, or mutual, but it's not abusive. It IS not meeting your spouse's needs because you aren't on the same page as far as wanting sex. A man or woman in this situation is choosing to stay in this situation. Day after day they are choosing the relationship. It's not abusive. It's just providing a bad sexual relationship to spouse that spouse is choosing to stay in day after day after day.





- Yes, its abusive. Reason is as follows. What if a hubby does not give his wife the emotional closeness, tenderness, romance, cuddling and she has told him she needs this and it goes on for say.....18 years. That is abusive from the hubby. Now if a spouse is LD, knows about this, talked about it, does nothing, 18 years later.....that's also abusive.


- It's completely unfair for the spouse who is being purposely neglected to just pack up and leave. Talk about taking it up the wazzooo even more. The spouse doing the neglecting should of left long ago. That's being fair.


- If a spouse wants adventurous sex, the other spouse is to learn and try it. Not because they have to but because they want to take care of their other halves needs as their own. When the shoe is on the other foot, they will remember and do the same. Taking care of each others needs as your own is key here. Not compromising is selfish and in it for yourself behavior and I have no sympathy for that.


- When married, you are to take care of each others needs as your own. Otherwise, stay single.


----------



## ChargingCharlie (Nov 14, 2012)

Ynot said:


> Charlie, are you saying that you agree that sex isn't important (in the case of your marriage)? I was told the same thing by my wife "none of my friends enjoy having sex with their husbands, it is just something they do to keep the peace". I have since found out that is simply not true of most women. Lots of women want and enjoy sex. I enjoy sex. I wanted more of it when I was married.
> My ex was ok with never having sex, and seldom did unless I talked to her about how long it had been. That was typically met with and angry "I can't believe you even keep track!" Then if I listed all the times and things that had happened in the interim, she might have "allowed" me five minutes or grudgingly submit to having sex (note I was not looking for submission, I was looking for willing and eager participation).
> I always wondered what the heck she was talking about. Nations and empires have gone to war over sex, people are willing to risk fame and fortune to have it. So I thought either there was something wrong with me (bad lover) or something wrong with her. Since I had her on a pedestal, I concluded it must just be me.
> Again, I have found out that was not the case.
> Your situation may be "normal" but only if you allow it to be. I think a lot of people remain in sexless or virtually sexless marriages because they just give up this part of themselves.


I don't agree personally - I was stating my wife's feelings. I think that sex is very important in a marriage, especially when both parties are still in good health. You'll never get those years back. 

Mine doesn't have the outward attitude of your ex - mine will occasionally (a few times a year) mention that we should have sex, but will then follow up with how tired she is, etc. My attitude is that I know that she doesn't like sex (she's mentioned that her ex would always want sex and she'd always give it to him even though she didn't want to, and is happy that I don't pester her for sex). If she's in the mood, she can let me know, as I've stopped trying. If she wanted to get her drive back, she'd check with her doctor on what she can do to ramp it up. Since she hasn't done this, I take that as a sign that it's not important to her. I'll spend my time playing with the kids and running my business.

I hope that I'm wrong about tonight when we leave our event - nothing would make me happier than be proven wrong. However, I fully expect nothing to happen, and stopped being disappointed when it doesn't.


----------



## CuddleBug (Nov 26, 2012)

Ynot said:


> I agree with this^^^^. The OP's wife isn't being abusive unless one is of the mind set that they are entitled to sex by virtue of being married. I think it is reasonable to expect sex by virtue of being married, but no one is entitled to another persons thoughts or actions. I also disagree with the idea that you stop being an individual once you get married. That is a recipe for disaster, resentment, anger and real abuse.
> In the case of the OP, as Livvie has said, he chooses to accept this. He can also choose not to accept it. That does not mean he can or should force or coerce his W to comply or submit to his wishes, desires and.or demands. But what he can do is clearly communicate with her (with or through a counselor if need be). Should she choose to ignore or disagree, then she has made her choice and it is up to the OP to decide either to accept it or move on.




- So what his wife did to him for 18 years is okay acceptable? NOT AT ALL.


- If you're not willing to make the effort to take care of your other halves needs as your own, remain single.


- Marriage is not single behavior. Marriage is both spouses taking care of each other needs as their own. It's called compromise, learning, growing, and doing things you may not love to do, but will anyway. Some self sacrifice.


- If sex is such a chore and difficult, there is a problem that needs to be addressed and not let slide for 18 years. Ridiculous.


----------



## CuddleBug (Nov 26, 2012)

ChargingCharlie said:


> Exactly - marriage isn't intended to tie two roommates together. There needs to be a physical component. Granted, life has a way of complicating things (kids, age, etc), but absent a physical issue there's no reason to deny your partner the pleasure of sex (unless both agree that sex isn't important).
> 
> I'm in a marriage where we haven't had sex in two years - my wife, while her attitude has greatly improved in other areas (not being stressed out over little stuff), she still had no desire for sex, and doesn't want to see if there's anything that she can do to fix it. My wife doesn't say no - it's just her actions. She's always mentioning how tired she is, how her head hurts, etc. Posted this in another thread - we are kid free this weekend so that we can attend a friends wedding. We'll both be dressed up and look good, and I'll be turned on looking at her. However, I am almost certain that when we get in the car to head home, the first thing that she will mention is how tired she is and can't wait to get into her PJ's and go to sleep - she's not turning me down per se, but it's her way to forestall any sex talk. I could insist that we have sex, and she'll comply, but that will be strictly duty sex that she just wants to get over with - I can do without that. I want a willing partner - not someone who feels that they're doing me a favor. It doesn't help that her friends all seem to be the same way from what i can gather - none have sex with their husbands more than a couple times a year, and they're all happy about it. It's constantly reinforces her belief that sex isn't important - "none of my friends have sex, so we're a normal couple"



- And that is a selfish and uncompromising LD spouse. In it for herself and sees nothing wrong with this. If sex is only a duty for her and she couldn't care less, she is the issue and not you. She has the power to do something about this or nothing......


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

ChargingCharlie said:


> I don't agree personally - I was stating my wife's feelings. I think that sex is very important in a marriage, especially when both parties are still in good health. You'll never get those years back.
> 
> Mine doesn't have the outward attitude of your ex - mine will occasionally (a few times a year) mention that we should have sex, but will then follow up with how tired she is, etc. My attitude is that I know that she doesn't like sex (she's mentioned that her ex would always want sex and she'd always give it to him even though she didn't want to, and is happy that I don't pester her for sex). If she's in the mood, she can let me know, as I've stopped trying. If she wanted to get her drive back, she'd check with her doctor on what she can do to ramp it up. Since she hasn't done this, I take that as a sign that it's not important to her. I'll spend my time playing with the kids and running my business.
> 
> I hope that I'm wrong about tonight when we leave our event - nothing would make me happier than be proven wrong. However, I fully expect nothing to happen, and stopped being disappointed when it doesn't.


Not to threadjack, but have you talked to her about this? One of the things that I have come to realize in my own life is that I allowed much of what happened to me happen to me. That is not to say she is blameless. But I think everyone is simply doing the best that they can. The real issue is two fold. #1 we don't know what we don't know, so the best we know may not be the best there is (I hope that make sense)
#2 none of us are mind readers. We simply cannot know what the other person thinks, wants, needs or desires. So the only real way to overcome this two fold problem is by advocating for our selves exactly what we want, need or feel.
In my case, I think I tried but to do this but overtime I became so beat down by failure that I lost track of the reality that I always had a choice. I taught her to treat me the way that she does. I allowed it to happen to me. Just as my ex, you and wife have done the same.
I hope you talk to your life. I hope you become an advocate for you, I hope she understands. I hope it all works out for you.


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

CuddleBug said:


> - So what his wife did to him for 18 years is okay acceptable? NOT AT ALL.
> 
> 
> - If you're not willing to make the effort to take care of your other halves needs as your own, remain single.
> ...


No one has argued that the OP's situation is acceptable. But the choice of acceptance is not his wife's, but the OP's. 
Nor has anyone argued against the rest of your post. But those are choices that each individual makes for themselves, it is not based on the others expectations of how things should be, but what they want out of life. A wife does not have a duty to do anything and a man is not entitled to anything either simply on the basis of having been married. 
Other than, you are correct. This is a situation that should have been addressed years ago. The OP is unhappy, but that doesn't mean his wife has the duty to make him happy, nor is he entitled to believe his wife should. 
You seem to keep arguing that his wife has a duty and he is entitled. That is simply not the case for a marriage - in either direction.


----------



## CuddleBug (Nov 26, 2012)

Ynot said:


> No one has argued that the OP's situation is acceptable. But the choice of acceptance is not his wife's, but the OP's.
> Nor has anyone argued against the rest of your post. But those are choices that each individual makes for themselves, it is not based on the others expectations of how things should be, but what they want out of life. *A wife does not have a duty to do anything and a man is not entitled to anything either simply on the basis of having been married.*
> Other than, you are correct. This is a situation that should have been addressed years ago. The OP is unhappy, but that doesn't mean his wife has the duty to make him happy, nor is he entitled to believe his wife should.
> *You seem to keep arguing that his wife has a duty and he is entitled. That is simply not the case for a marriage - in either direction.*




- When married, both spouses are to take care of each others needs as their own.


- She has not done this in 18 years of marriage and knows this.


- She is not a caring and loving wife, taking care of her hubby's needs.


- She is to do this out of love and part of the reason she got married in the first place.


- She is in it for herself, selfish, uncompromising, unchanging and not a loving wife.


- You could flip this and say, a hubby doesn't have a duty to his wife.......then why be married in the first place?


- *The reason you get married is to emotionally, romantically, physically and sexually want to be together because you love each other and want what's best for each other.
*

- 18 years later........great wife, terrible hubby.


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

CuddleBug said:


> - When married, both spouses are to take care of each others needs as their own.
> By this logic the OP should just be accepting his wife's need to not have sex.
> 
> - She has not done this in 18 years of marriage and knows this.
> ...


The only way your "logic" makes any sense if you accept two horrible things to be true #1 you stop being you when you marry and #2 a wife is just the property of her husband. Neither are remotely true but the belief that they are lead to many horrible marriages.


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

That’s interesting. My wife is kind of borderline LD or RD, I’m not sure. She’s happy to go longer stretches without sex (a week or two or longer in the past sometimes). And it seems to me it can’t be that important to her (certainly not as important as to me). However when we DO have sex she actually enjoys it. Though she’s not especially adventurous or passionate (she’s more passionate during make up sex or if something happened or if I have been away for too long).




Ynot said:


> Charlie, are you saying that you agree that sex isn't important (in the case of your marriage)? I was told the same thing by my wife "none of my friends enjoy having sex with their husbands, it is just something they do to keep the peace". I have since found out that is simply not true of most women. Lots of women want and enjoy sex. I enjoy sex. I wanted more of it when I was married.
> 
> My ex was ok with never having sex, and seldom did unless I talked to her about how long it had been. That was typically met with and angry "I can't believe you even keep track!" Then if I listed all the times and things that had happened in the interim, she might have "allowed" me five minutes or grudgingly submit to having sex (note I was not looking for submission, I was looking for willing and eager participation).
> 
> ...







Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## VladDracul (Jun 17, 2016)

trexonabike said:


> That's the background for this question. If a woman has sex with a man because she feels coerced or threatened - not physically threatened, but that there could be negative repercussions to not having sex, that's sexual assault if not rape.


I'm a little late for the show but your question brings up another question. If a woman gives it up to her husband to stop his complaining, keep him around for a roof over her head, and make her life easier, is she hooking?


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

CuddleBug said:


> - When married, both spouses are to take care of each others needs as their own.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You should do power point presentations on this topic. Your bullet points are very concise 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

Btw I’m going to say something controversial (surprise): but it strikes me that women in porn movies all act as if they are really into it. And most men would not only be happy but ecstatic with those kinds of performances or even a hundredth of that performance) from their wives in real life.
It made me think two things (in cuddlebug’s style of using bullet points 
- any woman is capable of putting on the show of their husband’s life time with the right incentive
- the incentive of being married and doing it ‘for love’ seems like a ****ty incentive
- need to find the right incentive

Kinda depressing thought but I thought I mention it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## WilliamM (Mar 14, 2017)

...


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

WilliamM said:


> Nowadays I suspect when a guy says "passion" it's often just a way to say "more like that porn actress I grew up wanking to"
> 
> Porn is so disgusting. I like the idea of pornography, but the actual porn available is all so bad I just can't stand it. Anyone who thinks porn even vaguely represents what real life should be like has no chance at being happy with real life.


I agree porn is not especially realistic. But my post wasn't about that.


----------



## WilliamM (Mar 14, 2017)

...


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

WilliamM said:


> During the two years my marriage was going through hell after my wife allowed our "friend" to seduce her one of the things I learned was my wife had been faking most of her sexual responses. She continues to say it wasn't most, but I believe it was most.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Yes. Some women seem to be more easily incentivised than others.
I agree with you; I’m not sure it matters that much in the end whether it is faked or real. As long as the faking seems completely real to you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

WilliamM said:


> During the two years my marriage was going through hell after my wife allowed our "friend" to seduce her one of the things I learned was my wife had been faking most of her sexual responses. She continues to say it wasn't most, but I believe it was most.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Also your wife may only be able to experience love or lust if she feels extremely guilty about something. That’s also possible. Some people may have been damaged in some way. It’s complicated. You should get her to see a shrink to sort it out in her head.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 247769 (May 18, 2016)

I was raised to believe I shouldn't be selfish towards others. So when it comes to sex and the wife says I'm not interested and it's just not needed in her life and I should just get from her what ever I need it comes across as selfish, mechanical and duty bound. Not the romantic fulfilling passionate sex I need to be satisfied. For me to get my jollies basically using her as a masterbation toy feels selfish and unsatisfilying for me. The lack of participation, eye rolling and constant "no's" when I request something other than missionary just compound the problem. I guess I could lie to myself saying she liked it if she put on a show during sex at least I can wrap my head around the fact she's really working hard to please me. So for me, if you are going to fake it at least make it a good lie. 

Sent from my XT1635-01 using Tapatalk


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

inmyprime said:


> Yes. Some women seem to be more easily incentivised than others.
> I agree with you; I’m not sure it matters that much in the end whether it is faked or real. As long as the faking seems completely real to you.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Oh, it matters. And in a big way. One is a lie, the other is the truth. This is no different than perpetuating, and continually restating, any other lie in marriage.

It is done out of avoidance. This is not love. Lying is not love. It is the easy way out.


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> Oh, it matters. And in a big way. One is a lie, the other is the truth. This is no different than perpetuating, and continually restating, any other lie in marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> It is done out of avoidance. This is not love. Lying is not love. It is the easy way out.



I didn’t phrase it well. It matters not if the wife is giving you great, passionate sex because she wants to please you or because she wants it herself, for her own ‘desire’. As long as you can’t tell the difference which one it is (and as long she continues to do it at no detriment to herself or others), i really don’t believe it makes any difference. It’s not a lie but people get into a habit of second guessing every single step heir wife takes. Which in many cases is for good reasons. In others, out of paranoia.
It only matters if you can tell the difference or if she’s unhappy to do it. (In which case you will be able to tell the difference).

I would love it if my wife couldn’t wait to jump my bones because she found me irresistibly attractive (like I find her) but it just never gonna happen. Due to biology or due to different set of minds. But she acts sometimes as if she does, and it’s good enough for me. (Most of the time).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## minimalME (Jan 3, 2012)

Before I was married, I didn't know myself well enough to know what pleased me or turned me on. Spending 20 years in a sexless marriage with a passive man, I learned a lot about myself.

I've never had my ideal relationship with a man. But in my head, what would please me is more of a traditional male/female dynamic - at least where intimacy is concerned. Equality in other areas is fine, but I feel more like a woman (and more feminine) with a man who's strong - who I respect. I prefer being the submissive partner.

Speaking only for myself, when it comes to sex, I don't want to be asked. It's always okay, and being 'taken' is a turn on. It may feel like a violation to other women, but it wouldn't to me. I like being led. I like being told what to do.

So, to answer your initial question, _So what is the the difference between this interaction and someone committing sexual assault?_, that's up to the people involved. 

For me, it'd only be in a marriage where I felt safe and desired, and where my respect for my husband was a given.





trexonabike said:


> So I have been pondering this question based on current events and climate, and my own situation. I will have been married 25 years this summer. Our sex life has been near nonexistent since the birth of our second child 18 years ago. While I still lust after her like I did when we first met, she had zero interest in me. I've realized she actively avoids getting into situations where I might make a move and her own way to initiate sex is always started with "I guess its been a while, you're getting cranky. " I work, she's been a sahm. We get along great as partners and friends but there is zero intimacy.
> 
> That's the background for this question. If a woman has sex with a man because she feels coerced or threatened - not physically threatened, but that there could be negative repercussions to not having sex, that's sexual assault if not rape.
> i know she is only having sex with me because 1. I get cranky and irritable and its the only way to stop that. 2. She's worried I might leave her and I'm the sole source of income. 3. It's easier to give into my request for sex and just get it over with. 4. Some other woman has hit on me (actually does happen)
> ...


----------



## WilliamM (Mar 14, 2017)

...


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

Some here seem to imagine that when a man says he would like more passion or eagerness that all he is really thinking about porn. Porn is not real. No one is suggesting that every sexual encounter has to be a mind-blowing experience. But there is a huge difference between active participation and just laying there. Or some one telling you, "don't worry about me, just get off and get off me".


----------



## WilliamM (Mar 14, 2017)

...


----------



## Windwalker (Mar 19, 2014)

inmyprime said:


> I didn’t phrase it well. It matters not if the wife is giving you great, passionate sex because she wants to please you or because she wants it herself, for her own ‘desire’. As long as you can’t tell the difference which one it is (and as long she continues to do it at no detriment to herself or others), i really don’t believe it makes any difference. It’s not a lie but people get into a habit of second guessing every single step heir wife takes. Which in many cases is for good reasons. In others, out of paranoia.
> It only matters if you can tell the difference or if she’s unhappy to do it. (In which case you will be able to tell the difference).
> 
> I would love it if my wife couldn’t wait to jump my bones because she found me irresistibly attractive (like I find her) but it just never gonna happen. Due to biology or due to different set of minds. But she acts sometimes as if she does, and it’s good enough for me. (Most of the time).
> ...



Yeti is correct, it does matter.

I'm going to flip the script on this one.
If she's not doing it for her, then don't bother.
To use a variation of a phase I have heard here more than a few times, I'm not a machine that you give a fifi doll to and magically get service and a paycheck from. I absolutely despise pandering. I would feel that I was being pandered to. 

The flip side of that, you can't exspect to do a few dishes and magically get sex from a woman.

Yes, it absolutely works both ways.

In the end, different strokes for different folks.


----------



## 247769 (May 18, 2016)

Ynot said:


> Some here seem to imagine that when a man says he would like more passion or eagerness that all he is really thinking about porn. Porn is not real. No one is suggesting that every sexual encounter has to be a mind-blowing experience. But there is a huge difference between active participation and just laying there. Or some one telling you, "don't worry about me, just get off and get off me".


Well put

Sent from my XT1635-01 using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

Ynot said:


> Some here seem to imagine that when a man says he would like more passion or eagerness that all he is really thinking about porn. Porn is not real. No one is suggesting that every sexual encounter has to be a mind-blowing experience. But there is a huge difference between active participation and just laying there. Or some one telling you, "don't worry about me, just get off and get off me".



You guys are misunderstanding the post about incentives. Forget about porn. Lets take work as an example: there are big incentives for someone to do their job well otherwise they get fired or don’t get paid etc. There is a strong incentive to do the job well. Whereas the incentives to provide good sex in a marriage for LD spouse maybe aren’t really there. Not that I advocate the HD pay their spouse for sex or get fired etc but there’s just a lack of incentive which may be the problem.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

But the majority of LD women (statistically) just find sex a bit of a chore, beyond their normal frequency. I think it’s a bit much to expect them to magically like it. I think one should meet somewhere half way: show appreciate when the effort is there. But beyond that, it seems unreasonable to me. That would require complete biological rewiring: it’s just not in their make up.
I can understand when people complain that there is absolutely no effort whatsoever (and constant rejection) but I do not understand when people complain about ‘enthusiasm’ and ‘passion’. I mean I DO understand but there’s not much that can be done about it.
I think this distinction is important.



Windwalker said:


> Yeti is correct, it does matter.
> 
> 
> 
> ...







Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## minimalME (Jan 3, 2012)

inmyprime said:


> You guys are misunderstanding the post about incentives. Forget about porn. Lets take work as an example: there are big incentives for someone to do their job well otherwise they get fired or don’t get paid etc. There is a strong incentive to do the job well. *Whereas the incentives to provide good sex in a marriage for LD spouse maybe aren’t really there.* Not that I advocate the HD pay their spouse for sex or get fired etc but there’s just a lack of incentive which may be the problem.


So what is your solution? What incentives do you suggest?



inmyprime said:


> But the majority of LD women (statistically) just find sex a bit of a chore, beyond their normal frequency. I think it’s a bit much to expect them to magically like it. I think one should meet somewhere half way: show appreciate when the effort is there. But beyond that, it seems unreasonable to me. That would require complete biological rewiring: it’s just not in their make up.
> 
> I can understand when people complain that there is absolutely no effort whatsoever (and constant rejection) but I do not understand when people complain about ‘enthusiasm’ and ‘passion’. I mean I DO understand but there’s not much that can be done about it.
> I think this distinction is important.


My desire is responsive. I don't really think of myself as LD or HD, but I do know that having sex makes me want more. And when having discussions about sex with men in my age group, they seem surprised. Apparently, I want more sex than they they'd be able to physically provide.


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

inmyprime said:


> You guys are misunderstanding the post about incentives. Forget about porn. Lets take work as an example: there are big incentives for someone to do their job well otherwise they get fired or don’t get paid etc. There is a strong incentive to do the job well. Whereas the incentives to provide good sex in a marriage for LD spouse maybe aren’t really there. Not that I advocate the HD pay their spouse for sex or get fired etc but there’s just a lack of incentive which may be the problem.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I wasn't referencing your post about incentives. However, I would say part of the problem is that one side or the other allows passionless sex to happen. Too many people just make assumptions about marriage. So when you think you can't get "fired" because marriage is forever. Or you think you just supposed to get sex because you are married. Or perhaps you realize that sex is important to a relationship so you engage in it eagerly in order to gain a spouse, but once you have that spouse you stop participating because you don't have to, because after all marriage if forever.
My point being that there are plenty of incentives to actively and eagerly engage in sex (besides all the selfish and personal reasons) it is just that too many people take those incentives off the table once they say "I do". That is not to say anyone should be expected to engage or anyone is entitled to be engaged, just that the incentives are there, if one is willing to actually employ them.
Ultimately the reason we pair bond is so that we have someone to engage in sex with. If one side or the other does not wish to participate any longer, that at the point it is incumbent upon each of us to decide if it is something we are willing to accept. If we choose to accept, we have no reason to complain. If we choose not to accept it, we owe it to our SO to discuss it. If that fails to solve the problem, our next option is to move on.


----------



## minimalME (Jan 3, 2012)

Ynot said:


> I wasn't referencing your post about incentives. However, I would say part of the problem is that one side or the other allows passionless sex to happen. *Too many people just make assumptions about marriage. So when you think you can't get "fired" because marriage is forever. *Or you think you just supposed to get sex because you are married. Or perhaps you realize that sex is important to a relationship so you engage in it eagerly in order to gain a spouse, but once you have that spouse you stop participating because you don't have to, because after all marriage if forever.
> My point being that there are plenty of incentives to actively and eagerly engage in sex (besides all the selfish and personal reasons) it is just that too many people take those incentives off the table once they say "I do". That is not to say anyone should be expected to engage or anyone is entitled to be engaged, just that the incentives are there, if one is willing to actually employ them.
> Ultimately the reason we pair bond is so that we have someone to engage in sex with. If one side or the other does not wish to participate any longer, that at the point it is incumbent upon each of us to decide if it is something we are willing to accept. If we choose to accept, we have no reason to complain. *If we choose not to accept it, we owe it to our SO to discuss it. If that fails to solve the problem, our next option is to move on*.


In my marriage, I was the one feeling like this was a problem I was constantly trying to fix. And I was met with roadblock after roadblock. 

Even during our separation, I made suggestions, and he chose to do nothing.

In the end, I did 'fire' him - which came across as a shock. And in some ways he seemed devistated, but not enough to commit to change.


----------



## cknpro (Aug 6, 2016)

oldshirt said:


> While I think calling it assault is a pretty wild stretch, if a spouse clearly does not want a sexual relationship, isn't their spouse somewhat ethically obligated to not pressure them and not pursue sex with them?? ...
> Just because someone is married, does not mean that they are obligated to have sex with someone they do not want - even if that person is their spouse. .... But just because one is married does not give them the right to have sex with someone that does not want it.




That’s BS. A marriage IS a sexual relationship. Period. Sex is what defines it and sets it apart from amiable roommates. 
If someone does not want and refuses sex in marriage, then they do not desire to be married - they just want a roommate. They’ve breeched the contract. 

That’s assuming that the refusal is just that - outright, selfish refusal. Often there are other extenuating circumstances that, once addressed, can change the dynamic. Both parties must remove selfish intent and look to the welfare of the other first. 
In almost every refusal situation, one or the other or both refuse to do that fundamental part of marriage. 

And why is the one not wanting more important that the one wanting? Is not wanting something suddenly more right? How bout this - 
I don’t want to go to work...
I don’t want to clean up the kitchen after I cook...
I don’t want to go to the movie with you...
I don’t want tot talk about your day...
I don’t want a sexless marriage.


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

cknpro said:


> That’s BS. A marriage IS a sexual relationship. Period. Sex is what defines it and sets it apart from amiable roommates.
> If someone does not want and refuses sex in marriage, then they do not desire to be married - they just want a roommate. They’ve breeched the contract.
> 
> That’s assuming that the refusal is just that - outright, selfish refusal. Often there are other extenuating circumstances that, once addressed, can change the dynamic. Both parties must remove selfish intent and look to the welfare of the other first.
> ...


It is not BS. It is reality. Despite what some think, you do not stop being who you are just because you got married. You may have gotten married for the wrong reasons, or you may have gotten married "just because", or due to familial pressure, or religious or societal expectations. But regardless you do not give up who you are just because you got married. You do not own your spouse and they do not own you. You have no expectation, nor entitlement to your SO or their body.
What you do have is choice. Either to accept it or not. As I said previously if you accept that is your choice. If you do not the only thing we owe each other is honesty. So you should discuss the issue with them and then YOU have a choice, accept or move on. 
Every choice we make is selfish. Even the choice to compromise is selfish. We do not become selfless just because we get married. The idea that we and our SO should be selfless is probably at the root of almost all failings of relationships.


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

minimalME said:


> So what is your solution? What incentives do you suggest?


Yes, I am not sure. Just an observation that we sometimes have to do **** we don't like and we have to do it well otherwise there are consequences. It's not like LDs can't have sex, they won't because they don't really have to. (Not that they should be forced in any shape or form!).

I think nowadays, the men get a pretty raw deal after a marriage. I have a feeling, the way society is evolving, there will be less people getting married. I already see it in some countries like Germany. Many young people live together, but are not married.



minimalME said:


> My desire is responsive. I don't really think of myself as LD or HD, but I do know that having sex makes me want more. And when having discussions about sex with men in my age group, they seem surprised. Apparently, I want more sex than they they'd be able to physically provide.


That's surprising. You must be hyper HD then.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

cknpro said:


> That’s BS. A marriage IS a sexual relationship. Period. Sex is what defines it and sets it apart from amiable roommates.
> If someone does not want and refuses sex in marriage, then they do not desire to be married - they just want a roommate. They’ve breeched the contract.
> 
> That’s assuming that the refusal is just that - outright, selfish refusal. Often there are other extenuating circumstances that, once addressed, can change the dynamic. Both parties must remove selfish intent and look to the welfare of the other first.
> ...


While I don't necessarily disagree with any of your specific points, it really doesn't change what I said.

If someone doesn't want to have sex with you, in today's western world you are obligated to respect their wishes to not have sex with them agaisnt their will.

You are free to divorce them and replace them with someone who does want to have a sexual relationship with them. 

But you are not able to sex with them against their wishes simply by virtue of being legally married.

Marital rape is recognized as an actual crime in all states to my knowledge. 

Now rape is the extreme example of course, but the point remains that each person has full rights to their own body and no one can impose their sexual will agaisnt their wishes either legally, morally or ethically.

Yes it may be a bad marriage if one refuses the other chronically, but their refusal must still be honored even if that makes them a poor marital partner.

If someone does not want to have sex with you, your options are suck it up and live with it, get it elsewhere or leave the marriage.

Having sex with them through force, coercion or duress is not the answer.


----------



## CuddleBug (Nov 26, 2012)

cknpro said:


> That’s BS. A marriage IS a sexual relationship. Period. Sex is what defines it and sets it apart from amiable roommates.
> If someone does not want and refuses sex in marriage, then they do not desire to be married - they just want a roommate. They’ve breeched the contract.
> 
> That’s assuming that the refusal is just that - outright, selfish refusal. Often there are other extenuating circumstances that, once addressed, can change the dynamic. Both parties must remove selfish intent and look to the welfare of the other first.
> ...




Well said.


Sad today that too many people aren't making the self sacrifice for their spouse. They're in it primarily for themselves. Those people, lots of talking and making excuses, should be single. Talk is cheap and actions speak louder than words..........


----------



## minimalME (Jan 3, 2012)

inmyprime said:


> I think nowadays, the men get a pretty raw deal after a marriage. I have a feeling, the way society is evolving, there will be less people getting married. I already see it in some countries like Germany. Many young people live together, but are not married.


And that makes me sad, because I'm the opposite. I don't care about boyfriends or living together, but I'd like to be remarried.



> That's surprising. You must be hyper HD then.


Not really. I would go years in between when I was married. And right now I'm not having sex. And I'm fine. 

As I said, I'm responsive. To love someone who also loved me, and to have him be highly assertive would be amazing.


----------



## DTO (Dec 18, 2011)

Livvie said:


> I agree with all of this except the last point. It's a bad partner, for sure. I don't believe it's abusive. It's not loving, giving, or mutual, but it's not abusive. It IS not meeting your spouse's needs because you aren't on the same page as far as wanting sex. A man or woman in this situation is choosing to stay in this situation. Day after day they are choosing the relationship. It's not abusive. It's just providing a bad sexual relationship to spouse that spouse is choosing to stay in day after day after day.


I don't think it's as clear cut as this. It does depend on how the rejection is happening.

Now, if the refusing spouse just flat out says "hey, you need to know that I just don't want to have sex at this point" or "I just don't find you attractive any more", that isn't abusive. That is just stating a fact that allows the unsatisfied partner to make an informed decision about how to move forward.

But, refusal that contains deceit is absolutely abusive (as least to the extent you accept manipulation is abuse). Some reasons for refusal on TAM (and even in this thread), that should make you closely evaluate your relationship:
* "I'd love to have more sex but" followed by some obstacle that never gets resolved.
* "I'd be more in the mood if" followed by some condition that changes or is resolved but sex still doesn't happen.
* "People our age don't have sex", "Nobody likes it that much", "People don't really do it like that", and the like.

My firm belief is that we are in relationships not only because we like the person (on some level) but also because we benefit personally from the relationship. This is not a bad thing, but it is reality. So, your spouse may not enjoy sex with you now (or perhaps never did), but they remain with you because of some other factor: you're good looking, intelligent, funny, etc.; you're a good parent or provider; they're lonely; whatever.

The partner regularly refusing sex knows it is a problem for the higher-drive spouse; telling the higher-drive spouse "you're just not going to get much sex from me" is likely to impact the aspects of the relationship that the lower-drive spouse does value highly. So there's a strong incentive for the lower-drive spouse to hide his or her true feelings regarding sex and continue to reap relationship benefits, and a strong disincentive to be honest. I understand that people want to protect what they have, but deceiving someone to keep them around is abuse.

Here's how it looks (an HD perspective). When pursuing a relationship, I am in 100%. She becomes a priority in my life and my conduct reflects that; thus, the ladies I've pursued have been happy initially. But having a relationship takes energy, and my willingness to expend it consistently comes from having MY needs met. If the lady is neglecting my needs (sexual and otherwise), I'm not going to give at the same level and then I'll lose all interest. Having learned my lesson in marriage, I communicate this clearly rather than just let it unfold.

These ladies, of course, is free to tell me "I'm just not feeling it with you" or "this is just how I am". But where sex has been the issue, that hasn't happened. I've been repeated told that she's just stressed out, tired, preoccupied but has energy for going out and staying up late. I've had a lady (in her 40s) blame a sheltered childhood for a supposed lack of relationship experience, then ask for patience but changes nothing. I strongly feel that in lots of such instances (including these two) the LD partners know nothing will change but try to string things along, which is inexcusable.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

inmyprime said:


> I didn’t phrase it well. It matters not if the wife is giving you great, passionate sex because she wants to please you or because she wants it herself, for her own ‘desire’. As long as you can’t tell the difference which one it is (and as long she continues to do it at no detriment to herself or others), i really don’t believe it makes any difference. It’s not a lie but people get into a habit of second guessing every single step heir wife takes. Which in many cases is for good reasons. In others, out of paranoia.
> It only matters if you can tell the difference or if she’s unhappy to do it. (In which case you will be able to tell the difference).
> 
> I would love it if my wife couldn’t wait to jump my bones because she found me irresistibly attractive (like I find her) but it just never gonna happen. Due to biology or due to different set of minds. But she acts sometimes as if she does, and it’s good enough for me. (Most of the time).
> ...


I see your distinction, and the corresponding likeness of result better now.

I guess I'm just skeptical that doing it purely to please someone else can be truly passionate.


----------



## minimalME (Jan 3, 2012)

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> I guess I'm just skeptical that doing it purely to please someone else can be truly passionate.


It can be. 

That's the fun part - knowing how much is pleases you. Driving a guy crazy is the best.


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

minimalME said:


> And that makes me sad, because I'm the opposite. I don't care about boyfriends or living together, but I'd like to be remarried.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The assertiveness bit took me a while to figure out actually; its counterintuitive but I noticed it with my wife, she likes it too when I am assertive/confident and sometimes 'use' her for sex (I worked it out by chance to be honest as it's completely against everything I ever thought about women in general...I thought it was all about being respectful, gentle and patient...Well that went out of the window quickly...and been replaced with a :whip: among other things). Anyway, I wondered whether a lot of men maybe get bogged down having to be assertive all the time. I mean it's tiring: a lot of the time, you can be as assertive as you want but if she ain't in the mood, it's never gonna happen. Other times, she is expecting you to be assertive to become completely submissive but you can't be arsed, because last 10 times you got rejected trying to do that so it feels like a massive effort to do the whole assertiveness act, just to have your confidence destroyed one more time.

I don't know. Maybe some women can enlighten me. But at some point, I basically told my wife 'look, if you want me to dominate you, you better initiate yourself first - and make it clear - none of this turning your back to me, expecting me to read your mind by the shape of your arse, 'cos I am not gonna start spanking you just so you can break my balls for the hundredth time'.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> I see your distinction, and the corresponding likeness of result better now.
> 
> I guess I'm just skeptical that doing it purely to please someone else can be truly passionate.


Come to think of it, I guess I have witnessed such a thing, albeit rather infrequently.


----------



## minimalME (Jan 3, 2012)

inmyprime said:


> The assertiveness bit took me a while to figure out actually; its counterintuitive but I noticed it with my wife, she likes it too when I am assertive/confident and sometimes 'use' her for sex (I worked it out by chance to be honest as it's completely against everything I ever thought about women in general...I thought it was all about being respectful, gentle and patient...Well that went out of the window quickly...and been replaced with a :whip: among other things). Anyway, I wondered whether a lot of men maybe get bogged down having to be assertive all the time. I mean it's tiring: a lot of the time, you can be as assertive as you want but if she ain't in the mood, it's never gonna happen. Other times, she is expecting you to be assertive to become completely submissive but you can't be arsed, because last 10 times you got rejected trying to do that so it feels like a massive effort to do the whole assertiveness act, just to have your confidence destroyed one more time.
> 
> I don't know. Maybe some women can enlighten me. But at some point, I basically told my wife 'look, if you want me to dominate you, you better initiate yourself first - and make it clear - none of this turning your back to me, expecting me to read your mind by the shape of your arse, 'cos I am not gonna start spanking you just so you can break my balls for the hundredth time'.


I understand. 

Being respectful and gentle and patient in general is great. But I like a man who's a man. It just does something for me. 

But I totally get that it takes a lot of energy to be dominant. I have no problem with the idea of switching it up now and then. Having a guy blind folded and tied to a chair for a minimum of an hour works for me.


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

minimalME said:


> It can be.
> 
> That's the fun part - knowing how much is pleases you. Driving a guy crazy is the best.


So it IS about control then? There's a flip side to this surely: knowing how much it drives him crazy when you please him must surely be the equivalent to also knowing how much it drives a guy crazy when he _*doesn't*_ get pleased?

This kind of thinking is quite alien to me, but I am aware that it exists. My first thought is when my wife tells me something like this is: so you are just doing it to *please* me then? What the hell do YOU get out of this? Why can't you just enjoy sex because YOu enjoy it without mind ****ing me at the same time?....

I think that's the crux of the misunderstanding right there between the sexes...


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> Come to think of it, I guess I have witnessed such a thing, albeit rather infrequently.





minimalME said:


> It can be.
> 
> That's the fun part - knowing how much is pleases you. Driving a guy crazy is the best.


See @Rocky Mountain Yeti? Here's your proof.


----------



## DTO (Dec 18, 2011)

trexonabike said:


> That's the background for this question. If a woman has sex with a man because she feels coerced or threatened - not physically threatened, but that there could be negative repercussions to not having sex, that's sexual assault if not rape...
> 
> Thoughts?


Complete B.S. Sexual assault / rape is actually using physical force, threatening force or harm, or having sex with someone who's incapacitated or below the age of consent. That's it - nothing else applies.

Simple negative repercussions are just that. If I tell my wife that monthly sex in inadequate and will lead to serious relationship issues, I've not abused her. I've not imposed any unwanted contact. All I've done is told her my feelings. If she feels bad, that's on her. She is still free to do as she wishes; to either work with me to fix the problem, or not.

I'll go a step further. If I end my marriage because the sex life has not improved, I've still not abused her. I've still not imposed any unwanted sexual contact on her. She's decided that improving the sex is not in her best interest. I am merely reacting to her decision and now am acting in my best interests. I understand that by making sex an existential issue I am removing the status quo and creating a lose/lose situation for her, but that's life. 

At a basic level, I feel relationships must be mutually ongoing. Neither partner owes the other anything except honesty. I don't believe that having had sex at some point creates an obligation to be or stay together; the time for shotgun weddings is past.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

inmyprime said:


> See @Rocky Mountain Yeti? Here's your proof.


Yes, I took it rather more positively than @inmyprime did. That she takes joy in her spouse's response is different than there is joy in _controlling_ him. I can see the distinction conceptually in @mimimalME's statement just as I can tell the difference in my life. 

If my wife didn't revel in being able to get a rise out of me, that would be a whole new level of problem.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

dupe.


----------



## minimalME (Jan 3, 2012)

inmyprime said:


> So it IS about control then? There's a flip side to this surely: knowing how much pleasing a guy drives him crazy must surely be the equivalent of a square root to the power of my arse...also knowing how much it drives a guy crazy when he _*doesn't*_ get it?
> 
> This kind of thinking is quite alien to me, but I am aware that it exists. My first thought is when my wife tells me something like this is: so you are just doing it to *please* me then? What the hell do YOU get out of this? Why can't you just enjoy sex because YOu enjoy it without mind ****ing me at the same time?....
> 
> I think that's the crux of the misunderstanding right there between the sexes...


Well, yes. But it's controlling in a good way, right? It's certainly not duty sex.


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> Yes, I took it rather more positively than @inmyprime did. That there is joy in her spouse's response is different than there is joy in controlling him. I can see the distinction conceptually in @mimimalME statement just as I can tell the difference in my life.
> 
> If my wife didn't revel in being able to get a rise out of me, that would be a whole new level of problem.


Yes, I am deliberately putting it through the lens of someone who gets constantly rejected as well.
I see too many guys give up on this site because of this misunderstanding. And I noticed my thinking gets affected by it too.


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

minimalME said:


> Well, yes. But it's controlling in a good way, right? It's certainly not duty sex.


Not yet...
But someone who also gets rejected a lot might misconstrue it this way because he won't be able to reconcile those two behaviour patterns in his mind.


----------



## minimalME (Jan 3, 2012)

inmyprime said:


> Not yet...
> But someone who also gets rejected a lot might misconstrue it this way because he won't be able to reconcile those two behaviour patterns in his mind.


I understand. But I also don't reject, so there's that.


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

minimalME said:


> I understand. But I also don't reject, so there's that.


Maybe that's because you haven't had someone pestering you for sex all the time 0


----------



## minimalME (Jan 3, 2012)

inmyprime said:


> Maybe that's because you haven't had someone pestering you for sex all the time 0


I wish.


----------



## DTO (Dec 18, 2011)

inmyprime said:


> You guys are misunderstanding the post about incentives. Forget about porn. Lets take work as an example: there are big incentives for someone to do their job well otherwise they get fired or don’t get paid etc. There is a strong incentive to do the job well. Whereas the incentives to provide good sex in a marriage for LD spouse maybe aren’t really there. Not that I advocate the HD pay their spouse for sex or get fired etc but there’s just a lack of incentive which may be the problem.


I disagree there is a lack of incentive to keep the fires lit. Everybody is in a relationship to get something out of it for themselves, whether sex is a plus or not.

Optimally, the motivation would be intrinsic: "I am going to love on my husband / wife because I want him / her to be happy". However, some people are more self-centered: "It's not a priority for me, and that's that" or "His / her sexual needs are not my problem".

In those cases, you pretty much have to take care of yourself better and do more for yourself. Do a hobby or sport, go out without your spouse, treat yourself to something nice - generally be less giving and available. The primary purpose of doing this is just to get some happiness where you can. But an important side effect of this is (hopefully) that your spouse feels your lack of presence. By being around less, you'll do less of what your spouse does value. You've created a correlation: "the more you do the stuff I like, the more I'll do the stuff you like".

It's not optimal, but the alternative is just to suck it up and grind out service, which is worse. Of course, if you don't do anything that will be missed when you're around less, then you're the problem.


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

CuddleBug said:


> Well said.
> 
> 
> Sad today that too many people aren't making the self sacrifice for their spouse. They're in it primarily for themselves. Those people, lots of talking and making excuses, should be single. Talk is cheap and actions speak louder than words..........


I have some news for you. You probably don't want to hear it. But here goes -
The WHOLE reason you get married is out of SELFISHNESS. It is not about self sacrifice, it is about the fact that this person means something to you, so you change things about your self in order to keep them in your life. It is not about sacrificing anything. Sacrificing things is a sure route to resentment, anger and unhappiness. There is no sacrifice involved, self or otherwise.
That being said, some people truly believe that their SO belongs to them and that their SO should submit (of course how that works in reverse is beyond me, but so far all we have heard is a man expressing this) to their wants and needs. It doesn't work that way. Marriage is not forever by default. it is a continuous choice. It can last forever IF both partners desire it to continue. However in some cases for whatever reason they don't desire the same thing. At that point choice, free will or if you like selfishness takes over. We get to decide if we are willing to accept it or not. The only thing we owe our SO is honesty, so at that point we talk to them. Depending on their choice we may make our own ie a continuous choice.


----------



## WilliamM (Mar 14, 2017)

...


----------



## Windwalker (Mar 19, 2014)

inmyprime said:


> But the majority of LD women (statistically) just find sex a bit of a chore, beyond their normal frequency. I think it’s a bit much to expect them to magically like it.
> 
> ‘enthusiasm’ and ‘passion’. I mean I DO understand but there’s not much that can be done about it.
> I think this distinction is important.


First part of your statement perfectly emphasizes my point. If they don't have the desire, then they just flat don't have the desire. There ain't a damn thing anyone is gonna do about it.

Second part, well everyone has their own standards. My standards are not your standards and vice versa. Thankfully not all of us are the same. 

Yes, there is absolutely something that can be done about it. Don't accept anything other than optimal passions and enthusiasm. It's really pretty simple. Then if you find that there is a big gap in desire and you find it unacceptable, a decision can be made.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

DTO said:


> Complete B.S. Sexual assault / rape is actually using physical force, threatening force or harm, or having sex with someone who's incapacitated or below the age of consent. That's it - nothing else applies.
> 
> Simple negative repercussions are just that. If I tell my wife that monthly sex in inadequate and will lead to serious relationship issues, I've not abused her. I've not imposed any unwanted contact. All I've done is told her my feelings. If she feels bad, that's on her. She is still free to do as she wishes; to either work with me to fix the problem, or not.
> 
> ...




Very well stated.


----------



## CuddleBug (Nov 26, 2012)

Ynot said:


> I have some news for you. You probably don't want to hear it. But here goes -
> The WHOLE reason you get married is out of SELFISHNESS. It is not about self sacrifice, it is about the fact that this person means something to you, so you change things about your self in order to keep them in your life. It is not about sacrificing anything. Sacrificing things is a sure route to resentment, anger and unhappiness. There is no sacrifice involved, self or otherwise.
> That being said, some people truly believe that their SO belongs to them and that their SO should submit (of course how that works in reverse is beyond me, but so far all we have heard is a man expressing this) to their wants and needs. It doesn't work that way. Marriage is not forever by default. it is a continuous choice. It can last forever IF both partners desire it to continue. However in some cases for whatever reason they don't desire the same thing. At that point choice, free will or if you like selfishness takes over. We get to decide if we are willing to accept it or not. The only thing we owe our SO is honesty, so at that point we talk to them. Depending on their choice we may make our own ie a continuous choice.



- I did not get married out of selfishness and neither did Mrs.CuddleBug.

- We got married because of the companionship, spending time together, buying a place together, growing older together, and you get the idea. That is not being selfish.

- When we just got engaged and I was staying at my parents place, I would be buying things we needed every week, for every month until the wedding date. My bedroom and closet were full of items, I didn't buy toys, nice car, travel, party, etc. this was to take care of Mrs.CuddleBug as a surprise, so when we moved into our apartment, voila, we have everything we need. That is not being selfish and I didn't do it for sex or anything else either.

- Mrs.CuddleBug to be knew I needed a new computer, so she borrowed me the money, even though it set her back, her dad got angry, but I paid her back within 3 months. She was not being selfish.

- Agreed marriage isn't forever unless both work at it. My parents and Mrs.CuddleBug's parents are both still married after 35+ years.

- Mrs.CuddleBug does sacrifice sometimes by doing things with me she doesn't love to do. She gets nothing out of this, no money, no toys, nothing. I do the same for Mrs.CuddleBug, expecting and getting nothing in return. (Chores done by the time she gets home, nothing for her to do, I get nothing for this).

- Moving from our apartment and buying a townhouse which is closer / further away from my / her family and friends. (Good for Mrs.CuddleBugs family and friends)

- We sometimes sacrifice for each other because its taking care of each others needs as our own.

- Mrs.CuddleBug's parents and my parents have done the same things throughout their marriages.

- If I was being selfish, I would do nothing for Mrs.CuddleBug unless I get sex......since she is LD, that doesn't apply.

- If she was being selfish, she wouldn't be buying me meal treats like she did after work today as a surprise and then tell me, I want a body massage later.......nope.

- I haven't changed much about myself since being married to Mrs.CuddleBug. I still weight train, eat healthy, always upgrading and improving for us, help out with chores, got laser eye surgery.

- Mrs.CuddleBug hasn't changed much either. Still loves to read good novels, on her laptop, watch her fav tv shows, go see her family, sister, kids and on the phone.

- So did Mrs.CuddleBug and I get married out of selfishness? Nope.

- Did my parents of her parents? Nope.


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

CuddleBug said:


> - I did not get married out of selfishness and neither did Mrs.CuddleBug.
> 
> - We got married because of the companionship, spending time together, buying a place together, growing older together, and you get the idea. That is not being selfish.
> 
> ...


Yes, it was selfishness - YOU wanted to be with her. So YOU took the action YOU needed to in order for YOU to be with her. Like it or not, YOU were selfish. So was she. That is just the way it is. I am sorry YOU feel as though YOU need to delude YOURself. But YOU acted in what YOU thought was YOUR best interests by marrying her. I am also sorry YOU think of this as selflessness and that you feel YOU sacrificed. YOU didn't. YOU acted in YOUR best interests in marrying this woman. No sacrifice required, it was YOUR choice ie selfishness.
I am also sorry that you are confused about what selfishness is. Had you been acting selflessly, you could have married anybody. But you didn't. You also didn't sacrifice anything. Again you acted in your own self interest.


----------



## cknpro (Aug 6, 2016)

Ynot said:


> Yes, it was selfishness - YOU wanted to be with her. So YOU took the action YOU needed to in order for YOU to be with her. Like it or not, YOU were selfish. So was she. That is just the way it is. I am sorry YOU feel as though YOU need to delude YOURself. But YOU acted in what YOU thought was YOUR best interests by marrying her. I am also sorry YOU think of this as selflessness and that you feel YOU sacrificed. YOU didn't. YOU acted in YOUR best interests in marrying this woman. No sacrifice required, it was YOUR choice ie selfishness.
> I am also sorry that you are confused about what selfishness is. Had you been acting selflessly, you could have married anybody. But you didn't. You also didn't sacrifice anything. Again you acted in your own self interest.



Ynot, I take it you are not a religious person, but I could be wrong. I am. However, I do understand your stance and can agree to a point. But I think you over inflate it a little.

Yes, ultimately, we will always do only what we want to do. There is always an individual payoff or we don't do it. Even if two decisions are unpalatable, we will choose the one that is least so or the one that promises the most payoff in the long term. 
The difference begins to become important when a person understands the immediate internal benefit of giving and sacrificing for others and chooses that instead of solely self-serving actions at the detriment to others. If I choose something for my wife's benefit, yes, I get a payoff. I feel good for serving her. If I didn't, I wouldn't do it. It is because I care for her that I do for her. I don't generally do for those I don't care for. But a higher level of love would even bring me to do for my enemies. Why? Because doing so can give me the internal peace that I followed my God's directives to love my neighbor - and that is indeed an internal payoff. Giving has internal payoff, self sacrifice has internal payoff. But it almost always requires a decision to deny oneself something, or costs us something in order to give or serve. THAT choice is selfless in that often that choice has not direct reciprocal benefit in kind. We have chosen to value the perceived benefit to someone else over our own immediate benefit of doing or taking or not doing a particular thing. (This speaks directly to sex in a marriage btw.) The only immediate value we get is a feeling of "glad I did that for them." Either you are just a "nice person" or you do so because of a promise of reward in this life or the next, brought about by faith in a higher power that has directed you to do more than just seek self satisfaction and immediate gratification that the human instinct normally seeks. This ability to make a self-sacrificing choice is what separates human's from animal kind. When faced with an ultimate decision of sacrifice or life, all other species will choose self survival over sacrifice for another. 

So yes, in a sense, it is a self serving decision to give or serve or sacrifice - but not self seeking. It is in fact "better" to give than to receive. Because it feels good to give. So when spouses focus on giving rather than receiving, they can reach a higher level of happiness than if they simply seek their own all the time. 

If you have a Christian religious outlook on life, you are trying to avoid sin against God and man. The basis of every sin is selfishness - the choice to do something, not do something, act in some way that serves oneself at the detriment of another or against the directives of God. It is basically an attitude of "I don't care what anyone thinks about X, I'm gonna do what I want!" Thinking solely about oneself. However, when I do something for my spouse, there is no promise I'll get reciprocation. In fact it is most often the opposite - all I get is a thank you if I'm lucky. But yes, that is my payoff. I get to feel good that I did something that she appreciated. And I get to feel peace within myself that I have followed my God's design for life, and if nothing else, I will be counted worthy of a greater reward at a time yet to be determined. The opposite of selfishness is deferred gratification.


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

cknpro said:


> Ynot, I take it you are not a religious person, but I could be wrong. I am. However, I do understand your stance and can agree to a point. But I think you over inflate it a little.
> 
> Yes, ultimately, we will always do only what we want to do. There is always an individual payoff or we don't do it. Even if two decisions are unpalatable, we will choose the one that is least so or the one that promises the most payoff in the long term.
> The difference begins to become important when a person understands the immediate internal benefit of giving and sacrificing for others and chooses that instead of solely self-serving actions at the detriment to others. If I choose something for my wife's benefit, yes, I get a payoff. I feel good for serving her. If I didn't, I wouldn't do it. It is because I care for her that I do for her. I don't generally do for those I don't care for. But a higher level of love would even bring me to do for my enemies. Why? Because doing so can give me the internal peace that I followed my God's directives to love my neighbor - and that is indeed an internal payoff. Giving has internal payoff, self sacrifice has internal payoff. But it almost always requires a decision to deny oneself something, or costs us something in order to give or serve. THAT choice is selfless in that often that choice has not direct reciprocal benefit in kind. We have chosen to value the perceived benefit to someone else over our own immediate benefit of doing or taking or not doing a particular thing. (This speaks directly to sex in a marriage btw.) The only immediate value we get is a feeling of "glad I did that for them." Either you are just a "nice person" or you do so because of a promise of reward in this life or the next, brought about by faith in a higher power that has directed you to do more than just seek self satisfaction and immediate gratification that the human instinct normally seeks. This ability to make a self-sacrificing choice is what separates human's from animal kind. When faced with an ultimate decision of sacrifice or life, all other species will choose self survival over sacrifice for another.
> ...


That is a lot of religious mumbo-jumbo to simply say you are doing the right thing. Doing the right thing has nothing to do with religion. It is actually the most selfish thing one can do. Have you ever heard the Golden Rule? Do unto to others as you would have done unto yourself? You want (selfishly) to be treated a certain way, so you treat others in that same way. In order to know how to treat others, you must first know how you want to be treated. No sacrifice, no selflessness involved, You aren't listening to "god" in the hopes of a better life in the hereafter, which itself is a selfish act made in the name of "sacrifice". The point as you so stated is that everything we do, we do out of rational self interest or selfishness. Thank you for making my point, even as you deny that you did.


----------



## WilliamM (Mar 14, 2017)

...


----------



## notmyrealname4 (Apr 9, 2014)

.


----------



## notmyrealname4 (Apr 9, 2014)

Desire can *never* be manufactured. Your spouse either wants you, or they don't.


You want your uninterested spouse to desire sex with you, the way you want sex with them.

They can't. They don't desire you anymore. The best they can give is duty sex.


Good-natured duty sex is given with love and affection. Contemptuous duty sex is permitted grudgingly.


There are all kinds of legitimate reasons you might need and want to stay with someone who doesn't want to have sex with you anymore.

That's the catch. The kids, the money, the shared family and friends and decades of memories and investment of time.

It has to really, truly stink, in order to put your marriage to death, and go back out in the world and try again. It gets harder and harder the older we get.


----------



## cknpro (Aug 6, 2016)

Ynot said:


> That is a lot of religious mumbo-jumbo to simply say you are doing the right thing. Doing the right thing has nothing to do with religion. It is actually the most selfish thing one can do. Have you ever heard the Golden Rule? Do unto to others as you would have done unto yourself? You want (selfishly) to be treated a certain way, so you treat others in that same way. In order to know how to treat others, you must first know how you want to be treated. No sacrifice, no selflessness involved, You aren't listening to "god" in the hopes of a better life in the hereafter, which itself is a selfish act made in the name of "sacrifice". The point as you so stated is that everything we do, we do out of rational self interest or selfishness. Thank you for making my point, even as you deny that you did.


I wasn't trying to make or unmake your idea. 

Where do you think we get the internal desire to "do the right thing?" Is it from our sense of self preservation? I think not. Is it from survival instinct? Nope. Either of those would say the "right thing" is whatever improves my own marginal utility or satisfaction to my flesh at the time with no regard for anyone else - unless of course they are the providers of said benefit. 

According to your philosophy there is no such thing as sacrifice as all things that you could consider such are actually for self interest, self gratification. What you seem to propose is hedonism. Not a new enlightened thought at all. Perhaps we should discuss how well that has served societies in the past. 

Do you have a definition of sacrifice, or do you believe sacrificial love is even possible? Did your mother ever sacrifice any personal gain to supply for your needs instead? Was that selfish on her part? Would you have rather she let you cry because she just wasn't in the mood to feed you at the moment? 

Maybe you haven't lived long enough to encounter or just don't know any truly selfish people. Maybe you haven't had someone act in ways that they knew hurt you but they chose rather to serve their immediate need or desire over being sensitive to your pain. Why would someone do such a thing? Oh....it was in their self interest to do so probably. Maybe they like to be lied to or cheated or beaten so that's how they act toward others...hmm, interesting thought. 

If I followed my selfish desires sexually, I would not be married to one woman. I would be mating as much as possible with as many as possible. I know this because I once did just that. I now choose to deny myself that in exchange for a higher valued choice that stems from faith in God's promises. It is the source of the perceived value of that choice that makes the difference. There is no other rational reason. 
Do I like being sexually frustrated often? Do I enjoy monotony in the bedroom? Have I stopped finding younger women, or even novel women attractive? Have I lost the ability to get another woman? 
No, to all the above. 
But I give those things up. Why? 
There is a cost to the choices I make. But why pay it?

Because doing the opposite would be painful to my wife - yet she does NOT always satisfy me or fulfill my every need. So there is no tangible payback. It is sacrifice of some basal needs, wants, desires in order to achieve higher levels of actualization. 

If you want to say mankind simply evolved into that ability out of self preservation motives....then you've got a much higher level of hypothesis to prove than do I. 

But we've strayed off the topic of wife just giving "duty sex." 
My wife gave me some duty sex this morning. It wasn't star fishing or ceiling inspection, but I know she was not horny or desirous of my member just for herself to enjoy. She chose to give me a gift of herself before I leave for a few days on business. It was a good gift, she wanted to give it, she was happy to give it. So should I be upset because it was "duty" or because it was "selfish in some twisted interpretation" on her part? Or should I be thankful for her willingness to sacrifice some of her time to do something for me that she otherwise would not have done, counting it as an expression of love for me? And no, you can't go "golden rule" on that because she was not wanting sex from me, so she wasn't giving it to me so she could get it, she wasn't loving me as she wanted me to love her. 
I choose to accept her gift gratefully, as love would have me do so. I do hope she got something out of it for herself and I do hope my attitude toward her allowed it.

A gift is only a gift if it costs you something. It is easy to love someone when they satisfy you. Love is not a feeling, it is an action. Loving someone else is only of real value when they are being unlovable. If you insist on pursuing that solely on a plain of selfish gain, it wears out very quickly. You cannot sustain it. That's when divorce or violence happens. Or even suicide, the most selfish choice of all. Living becomes too expensive. That purely internal payoff becomes valueless unless you have a deeper, less fickle sense of value attached to your choices. 

And most "religions" in this world have nothing to do with the great I Am. But that's a whole other discussion....


----------



## cknpro (Aug 6, 2016)

WilliamM said:


> I absolutely will not ask anyone to climb a mountain too steep for them. I will not allow myself to have unrealistic expectations of people.



Unrealistic expectations of others cause a plethora of problems don't they!


----------



## notmyrealname4 (Apr 9, 2014)

.


----------



## SunCMars (Feb 29, 2016)

notmyrealname4 said:


> If you say so dude.





> SunCMars-...God created Testosterone to torture men.
> And to make women, God Awful powerful.



I am Dude.

Thank God, not Dud.

Dud, arriving in a resounding thud, finality meeting reality.

Dude works, a little chilly in winter, such thin veneer for a Sage.

Ah, sage brush, drifting at the whim of hot air breathed, puffed from afar.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

RE: Self Sacrifice

I've always been rather skeptical of those who claim genuinely altruistic motivations for their actions. When I give up my day to do volunteer work, I have the self-awareness to know that I am doing it because I get something out of it. When I defer my preference for my wife's, I may be doing it because of the joy I get from the smile on her face, or maybe just because avoiding conflict in that particular case is preferable. Either way, my choice is driven, as far as I can tell, by what I perceive to be my best option at that time. So many people have told me with great admiration, how unselfish I am. If they only knew! I have tried to explain, but few seem to get it. 

People will say "But what about Mother Theresa?" She sacrifices so much and gets little in return! She has dedicated her entire life to helping others! I once read an interview with Mother Theresa. When asked "How can you do all that you do?," she responded "How could I not?" The bottom line is that she felt compelled to do what she does...it is a calling. To do otherwise would be a rejection of her true self. So in doing so, she is not sacrificing, but rather reinforcing her self.


----------



## WilliamM (Mar 14, 2017)

...


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

cknpro said:


> I wasn't trying to make or unmake your idea.
> 
> Where do you think we get the internal desire to "do the right thing?" Is it from our sense of self preservation? I think not. Is it from survival instinct? Nope. Either of those would say the "right thing" is whatever improves my own marginal utility or satisfaction to my flesh at the time with no regard for anyone else - unless of course they are the providers of said benefit.
> We get the idea to do the right thing from within ie from selfishness, because we wish to be treated the way we treat others. You continue to confuse greed with selfishness. You don't cheat on your wife because that is not how you would like to be treated. It is a hard boundary which you will not allow to be crossed, so you don't cross it either
> ...


Yes, if we substitute "greed" every time you wrote "selfish" you might have an argument. Otherwise, your reply was just a wordy denial of reality.


----------



## cknpro (Aug 6, 2016)

Ynot said:


> Yes, if we substitute "greed" every time you wrote "selfish" you might have an argument. Otherwise, your reply was just a wordy denial of reality.



It is a semantic argument to a great extent. 

“A wordy denial of reality....” aren’t you generous with your omniscient judgement...


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

cknpro said:


> It is a semantic argument to a great extent.
> 
> “A wordy denial of reality....” aren’t you generous with your omniscient judgement...


Call it what you will. But words have meanings. It is too bad that some choose ignore that.
As for my conclusion, I could say the same to you. But it is true all the same


----------



## Tony Conrad (Oct 7, 2013)

I agree with Cuddlebug on this. It is not right to withold sex from your spouse if they are being faithful physically. One might not want to do everything suggested but sex is surely owed in marriage. Witholding sex must lead to enormous temptation outside of the marriage and is very cruel either from the wife or the husband. Marriage is not or should not be like two flatmates sharing a house. If you cannot go to bed with your spouse I could hardly describe it as a marriage unless they were both consenting to it.

The only exception I would suggest is where the spouse is being physically unfaithful or where they are into pornography which in my book is a kind of mental adultery.


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

Wow, I am amazed at all the posters who think of marriage in terms of possession, debt, sacrifice, duty and/or obligation. Now I know why I will never marry again.


----------



## DTO (Dec 18, 2011)

I don't think of it in terms of debt or possession, and I doubt most others do as well.

As far as sacrifice, duty, and obligation, the problem is not that we think of marriage in those terms, but that those terms have evolved to carry negative connotations.

I sacrifice and assume duties happily and lovingly for my partner, simply because her happiness is that important to me. And it goes the same for her too.

Example: my GF comes down to visit me every two weeks or so. That is a loving sacrifice from her to devote that time to me. In return, I keep a nice home where she feels welcomed, cook the meals or take her out, etc. I do so happily because she has earned it by treating me well. (Like I said, she's a keeper.)

If you dislike applying those principles in your life, you might be with the wrong person. Or, you're just not very giving.





Ynot said:


> Wow, I am amazed at all the posters who think of marriage in terms of possession, debt, sacrifice, duty and/or obligation. Now I know why I will never marry again.


----------



## Tony Conrad (Oct 7, 2013)

I agree but obviously some don't. That's up to them I suppose. Duty can be taken two ways. Just to have sex out of duty and begrudging it is not desirable for anyone, but doing it willingly because it is the right thing to do is wonderful. I suspect that if one had that attitude it would overcome any negative feelings one had about sex eventually.The door should never be closed on sex if two enter into marriage.


----------



## WilliamM (Mar 14, 2017)

...


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

On a lighter note, on some rare occasions when my wife's feeling frisky, she'll tell me I must perform my "husbandly duty."

She has fun turning around the stereotype, and its a little joke between us as she knows I'm generally game and wouldn't consider it a "duty" in any case.


----------



## Handy (Jul 23, 2017)

* Inmyprime
The assertiveness bit took me a while to figure out actually; its counterintuitive but I noticed it with my wife, she likes it too when I am assertive/confident and sometimes 'use' her for sex (I worked it out by chance to be honest as it's completely against everything I ever thought about women in general...I thought it was all about being respectful, gentle and patient...Well that went out of the window quickly...and been replaced with a among other things). Anyway, I wondered whether a lot of men maybe get bogged down having to be assertive all the time. I mean it's tiring: a lot of the time, you can be as assertive as you want but if she ain't in the mood, it's never gonna happen. Other times, she is expecting you to be assertive to become completely submissive but you can't be arsed, because last 10 times you got rejected trying to do that so it feels like a massive effort to do the whole assertiveness act, just to have your confidence destroyed one more time.

I don't know. Maybe some women can enlighten me.*

minimalME, I bet a lot om men encounter what InMyPrime posted. I do like it that you said you were open to a H's advances. Not all W's are.  Many W's are judgemental and if the H doesn't get it right in her mind, then she thinks he is in it just for himself. When I ask my W what she likes she says she doesn't know what she LIKES but knows what she doesn't like. What i gather is she just likes to complain and bump her frustrations on me when we did have sex a few times a year.

For me taking control worked a few times then it didn't work and my w resented the control I took. It is SOOOO difficult to tell ahead of time when control works or when it makes things worse.

Long story short, I don't approach my W for anything. She moved to the spare bedroom a long time ago. She stated sex is just for the man's benefit and there is something wrong with me because I DON'T have ED.

I am good for maintaining the house, cooking, paying bills and helping her with things she can't or doesn't want to do.

Gray divorce is an option for me.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

Not every man is as willing to go through this as many times as Charlie Brown.


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

DTO said:


> I don't think of it in terms of debt or possession, and I doubt most others do as well.
> 
> As far as sacrifice, duty, and obligation, the problem is not that we think of marriage in those terms, but that those terms have evolved to carry negative connotations.
> 
> ...


So in other words, since she meets your needs, you meet hers. The definition of selfishness. You do not sacrifice. You desire her in your life so you make choices. You do not assume duties. You made a choice to act in a manner to keep her in your life (again selfishness), you did not assume anything, you are reacting to your obligation to your self in that you want her in your life and therefore do what you feel is required to do so. To make a sacrifice or to assume a duty you would have to do these things for a complete stranger who you have no desire to be with.


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

WilliamM said:


> Yes, it is my duty.
> 
> Yes, it is my obligation.
> 
> ...


And if she didn't attend to your needs? You would still gladly accept responsibility to attend to her needs? I seriously doubt you would still be together. But that is OK, continue to delude yourself that you are being altruistic and selfless.


----------



## WilliamM (Mar 14, 2017)

...


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

WilliamM said:


> Charlie Brown probably just has a Covert Contract with Lucy!


Yeah...
.... except every time, she promises not to yank the ball out at the last second. 

Overt contract for sure -- breached. What's really covert are Lucy's motivation and objective.


----------



## WilliamM (Mar 14, 2017)

...


----------



## BigDigg (Jan 11, 2018)

ChargingCharlie said:


> My wife doesn't say no - it's just her actions. She's always mentioning how tired she is, how her head hurts, etc. Posted this in another thread - we are kid free this weekend so that we can attend a friends wedding. We'll both be dressed up and look good, and I'll be turned on looking at her. However, I am almost certain that when we get in the car to head home, the first thing that she will mention is how tired she is and can't wait to get into her PJ's and go to sleep


CC - Just curious - how'd it go this weekend? 

My wife had thyroid cancer a few years ago which required full removal of her thyroid. The thyroid replacement medication she's on full time can make her feel crummy when her levels get out of balance and it really saps her drive and energy from time to time. We also had a big weekend lined up without the kids, however unfortunately she had her 'catch up' dosage on Friday which meant she wasn't feeling well most of the weekend. She made a few comments about it Saturday morning and noticeably low energy but still wore some of her best 'stuff' (so telling me she was open to it). I couldn't/wouldn't initiate though knowing she wasn't going to be really into it and just going through the motions probably for my sake. Kind of a bummer and I know how you feel when you've got a special occasion lined up and just knowing it's not going to be that type of night.


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

WilliamM said:


> It is likely the reason the name is called Covenant rather than contract is to delineate it as something special. Certainly my wife points out the terms of the Covenant are different. As humans we do fail to adhere to the tenants of the Covenant, but in believing we should try to adhere to them we become better.
> 
> I will say a couple things about Mary and her illness. I have never found she lies when she offers information of her own volition. She doesn't talk much, so I don't get much information, but that seems to be valid about her. Also, what she has said she believes about the Marriage Covenant she puts into action.
> 
> ...


Nice none-answer. It is a simple question - if your needs weren't being attended to would you still be so altruistic?


----------



## WilliamM (Mar 14, 2017)

...


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

WilliamM said:


> But I will never understand why anyone would continue to do anything for someone who fails to fulfill a need.
> 
> He will never get her there by fulfilling her needs while she does not fulfill his, that is for sure.
> 
> .


IOW, one (including yourself) does act selfishly. Thank you for answering my question despite your attempt to hide the answer.


----------



## WilliamM (Mar 14, 2017)

...


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

WilliamM said:


> I don't hide my answers.
> 
> My answer is the third on this thread, wherein I told this OP "As for your situation, I just think you are overreacting to an extreme."
> 
> ...


I see, so IOW you are allowed to advise the OP to be selfish, then argue against someone else who does as well? Instead you buried your advice under an avalanche of words about the "covenant" while going to great lengths to oppose the idea that he needed to become more selfish. If you truly want to give advice, it would be best if you were at least truthful about it.


----------



## WilliamM (Mar 14, 2017)

...


----------



## Windwalker (Mar 19, 2014)

WilliamM said:


> I am oft called a perfectionist although it is not at all true. Nothing is ever perfect.
> 
> All I have ever asked of anyone, my children, my subordinates, my wife, myself, is they perform well given their capabilities.
> 
> ...


I'll repeat what I have said many times. Everyone has their own standards by which they accept things in this life and by how they live their life. My standards are not anyone's but my own.

What's funny is, I'm telling them to not even bother to try if they can't make it to the top of THEIR mountain. Lol.so, yeah, I'm actually ask less of them. 

Satisfaction? Success? Meh. It's all relative, and also fleeting.


----------



## cknpro (Aug 6, 2016)

Windwalker said:


> Satisfaction? Success? Meh. It's all relative, and also fleeting.



As a wise man once wrote: “this too is vanity, a chasing after the wind.”


----------



## Tony Conrad (Oct 7, 2013)

Ynot said:


> So in other words, since she meets your needs, you meet hers. The definition of selfishness. You do not sacrifice. You desire her in your life so you make choices. You do not assume duties. You made a choice to act in a manner to keep her in your life (again selfishness), you did not assume anything, you are reacting to your obligation to your self in that you want her in your life and therefore do what you feel is required to do so. To make a sacrifice or to assume a duty you would have to do these things for a complete stranger who you have no desire to be with.


Sacrifice just for the sake of it is more masochism I think. We meet each others sexual needs. That is good and right and is one of the benefits of a good marriage. It isn't selfishness it enriches the marriage all round. Sacrificing ones sexual needs in a marriage may be very heroic but it could point to the fact that there is something very wrong in the marriage. Sex is a lot more fulfilling if the other is satisfied too.


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

Tony Conrad said:


> Sacrifice just for the sake of it is more masochism I think. We meet each others sexual needs. That is good and right and is one of the benefits of a good marriage. It isn't selfishness it enriches the marriage all round. Sacrificing ones sexual needs in a marriage may be very heroic but it could point to the fact that there is something very wrong in the marriage. Sex is a lot more fulfilling if the other is satisfied too.


I agree that sex is a lot more fulfilling if the other is satisfied too. I would also agree that is you feel like you are sacrificing, there is something wrong with the marriage. Which is why I dislike it when people come on here bragging about their selflessness and sacrifice as if they are some kind of hero, when in fact they are acting completely out of selfishness


----------



## CuddleBug (Nov 26, 2012)

Ynot said:


> Yes, it was selfishness - YOU wanted to be with her. So YOU took the action YOU needed to in order for YOU to be with her. Like it or not, YOU were selfish. So was she. That is just the way it is. I am sorry YOU feel as though YOU need to delude YOURself. But YOU acted in what YOU thought was YOUR best interests by marrying her. I am also sorry YOU think of this as selflessness and that you feel YOU sacrificed. YOU didn't. YOU acted in YOUR best interests in marrying this woman. No sacrifice required, it was YOUR choice ie selfishness.
> I am also sorry that you are confused about what selfishness is. Had you been acting selflessly, you could have married anybody. But you didn't. You also didn't sacrifice anything. Again you acted in your own self interest.




- What a horrible and bad way to look at getting married. No wonder you are.......what for it.......divorced!


- If I expressed my views on marriage as selfish to Mrs.CuddleBug like you are doing, she would freak on you to say the least, let alone most other women.


- Marriage is self sacrifice some of the time and we do this because we love each other and want to make each other happy. We aren't getting paid for this......love, you've heard of that before?


- If you ever want to get married again, I would stop with the cold and inhuman way of looking at marriage......it won't work with the ladies......hint, hint.


- If you honestly think that everyone is selfish getting married then enjoy being single for the rest of your life.......lots of loving companionship coming your way for sure.


- When you get over that unloving way looking at marriage, I wish you at that point a good woman who wants you for you, true companionship, being in your company, because she actually loves you.....not because she is selfish.


- Good luck on that and I've been married for 18+ years now........and it still takes work.


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

CuddleBug said:


> - What a horrible and bad way to look at getting married. No wonder you are.......what for it.......divorced!
> 
> 
> - If I expressed my views on marriage as selfish to Mrs.CuddleBug like you are doing, she would freak on you to say the least, let alone most other women.
> ...


Yeah when you make it to 24 years let me know. I have some news for you. You are selfish. So is she. We all are, If you think we aren't you are lying to yourself. 
Personally I couldn't care any less what Mrs Cuddlebug thinks. I think if she thinks like you do you are a pair made in heaven. Two equally deluded people , happily living a life of blissful ignorance.


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

Ynot said:


> Yes, it was selfishness - YOU wanted to be with her. So YOU took the action YOU needed to in order for YOU to be with her. Like it or not, YOU were selfish. So was she. That is just the way it is. I am sorry YOU feel as though YOU need to delude YOURself. But YOU acted in what YOU thought was YOUR best interests by marrying her. I am also sorry YOU think of this as selflessness and that you feel YOU sacrificed. YOU didn't. YOU acted in YOUR best interests in marrying this woman. No sacrifice required, it was YOUR choice ie selfishness.
> I am also sorry that you are confused about what selfishness is. Had you been acting selflessly, you could have married anybody. But you didn't. You also didn't sacrifice anything. Again you acted in your own self interest.




Yes I know it can be called selfishness as well but I’m not sure it is the best word to use. In biology, it’s called symbiosis: both get something out of it for themselves.
Selfishness has a bit of a negative ring to it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## notmyrealname4 (Apr 9, 2014)

.


----------



## Tony Conrad (Oct 7, 2013)

I agree selfish is used for everything. There are enough opportunities in life for sacrifice. Trying to help people and helping people who have no thought of reciprocating. Marriage is apart. It is the closest relationship, or should be, that we have on the earth. Ideally both will love each other by the time they get to the altar. Sexual bonding is one of the blessings of marriage which cements it together, not to mention the love they have for one another. Out of that marriage, generally, comes children who need a lot of love from day one. A good marriage often reaches further than each other and it's own children as a force for good in the world and the cementing of civilisation. To say it is selfish to enjoy sex is not relevant. Sex is a blessing in a good marriage to be thoroughly enjoyed by both without guilt. To me it is like saying you are selfish for enjoying the food which keeps you alive. Sex, food and love are good things to be enjoyed to the full which have a positive contribution to our well being. The biggest danger I see in these latter posts is the possibiliy of self hatred which can destroy you from within.


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

Referring to relationships as a selfish endeavour may not be technically wrong but it masks the fact that it can be beneficial for the partner too.
Not everything we do is ‘selfish’: for example things to do with your own kids are mostly altruistic. There, the genes are in control, so one could say it’s the genes, who are being selfish while the host is seemingly acting altruistically.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

No one has said that a selfish act by one cannot be enjoyed by another. But the fact remains that we all act selfishly. How many threads do you have to read about men and women who's marriages are great but they aren't getting enough sex?
The reality is that when our needs are not being met (IOW we are acting selfishly) is usually when troubles in a marriage start. And if those needs continue to remain unmet, we often act equally selfishly by choosing to divorce that partner.

The real sacrifice, is not some person who does the dishes and continues to have sex, but the person who does the dishes and gets nothing in return. IOW sacrifice hurts, it is not the result of doing/not doing something in return for something. It is giving something up in exchange for nothing. I get tired of these guys who are getting their needs met, acting like heroes, because they claim to be sacrificing, when in fact they aren't.

Nor do I look at selfishness as being negative. Real selfishness is rational (IOW there is a reason you feel this way) self interest. What is best for me? Greed OTOH is irrational self interest. Most people confuse selfishness and greed. Which is why they lie to themselves by claiming they are not being selfish, when they are. Instead they piously claim to be selfless. Yet not one of them will answer the question - would you be so "selfless" if your needs weren't being met.

I posit they would be unhappy and absent finding a solution, move on either by cheating (gasp!) or by divorce. We are all motivated by selfishness, regardless of what some say.

Recognizing this reality and understanding the real motivations of people, would go a long way towards destroying much of the myths, assumptions and expectations many hold about marriage and allow them to be better partners.


----------



## Bliss.1956 (Jan 31, 2018)

Read the blog hightmarriage.com. This lady has some good posts that I think may help your marriage. If those don't help you need to either settle for a ridiculous sex life or divorce. You can try to be friends after the D. No way I would live like that though, no way.


----------



## WilliamM (Mar 14, 2017)

...


----------



## Tony Conrad (Oct 7, 2013)

One could say then that it is all about truth. Enlightened self interest will cause you to do the right things. Unenlightened self interest will cause you to do the wrong things. The real answer is in finding out what is right and good and doing it. It is right for me to love my wife and I try to do better and better in that. That is both selfish from the point of enlightenment but unselfish in the carrying out of that belief. I believe that the sex should be good in a marriage if you can get there. Loving my wife will help that indirectly as well as other things. For me forgiving my wife is also enlightened self interest as I know that unforgiveness in me can turn to bitterness if I don't deal with it and eat away at the marriage.


----------



## DTO (Dec 18, 2011)

Well, of course getting one's needs met is a component of this (or any) relationship. Nobody enters into a relationship for the sheer attraction to another person; what that person brings to the table ("what do I get out of it") always factors into this decision.

What you are missing though (in my case, at least) is that the mutual service between me and my GF is not nearly as quid-pro-quo as you make it seem. I don't meet her needs because I want something from her. I serve her because I like her and am attracted to her, and want her to be happy. Because we are compatible, the stuff I instinctively do for her and with her makes her happy (it is the stuff she likes to have done for her and with her).

And the above works the same way for her. Our mutual fulfillment is the result of our mutual service to each other (while having the necessary mutual attraction), not the driver of this mutual service. And this dynamic makes all the difference. We strive to serve the other. We do stuff for which we will see no payoff because we have created a virtuous cycle of service to each other. This cycle arises from each of us being generous by nature, and wanting to reward what we have received in turn.



Ynot said:


> So in other words, since she meets your needs, you meet hers. The definition of selfishness. You do not sacrifice. You desire her in your life so you make choices. You do not assume duties. You made a choice to act in a manner to keep her in your life (again selfishness), you did not assume anything, you are reacting to your obligation to your self in that you want her in your life and therefore do what you feel is required to do so. To make a sacrifice or to assume a duty you would have to do these things for a complete stranger who you have no desire to be with.


----------



## Steve2.0 (Dec 11, 2017)

I would suggest the 'married man sex life primer" from Athol

I think this is a similar situation that most men find themselves in. They want sex, but they dont want duty sex because its just not fun... but they dont do much to generate desire in their wife either.

Basically, being a good husband, father, and house chore guru isnt going to get her wet between the legs. So you need to be that guy AND the guy that generates the 'tingles' for her


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

DTO said:


> Well, of course getting one's needs met is a component of this (or any) relationship. Nobody enters into a relationship for the sheer attraction to another person; *what that person brings to the table ("what do I get out of it") always factors into this decision.
> *
> What you are missing though (in my case, at least) is that the mutual service between *me* and my GF is not nearly as quid-pro-quo as you make it seem.* I* don't meet her needs because *I* want something from her. *I* serve her because *I* like her and am attracted to her, and want her to be happy. Because we are compatible, the stuff *I* instinctively do for her and with her makes her happy (it is the stuff she likes to have done for her and with her).
> So IOW because YOU want her to remain in YOUR life, YOU do things to make her happy. So YOU act selfishly by doing the things she wants so that she remains in your life
> And the above works the same way for her. Our mutual fulfillment is the result of our mutual service to each other (while having the necessary mutual attraction), not the driver of this mutual service. And this dynamic makes all the difference. We strive to serve the other. We do stuff for which we will see no payoff (other than the fact that you will other than the fact that hopefully you will both choose to remain in each others life) because we have created a virtuous cycle of service to each other. This cycle arises from each of us being generous by nature, and wanting to reward what we have received in turn.


Yes, yes, I get it! You are different, you are in love, you are acting selflessly to please this woman and vice versa, yada, yada, yada. 
Now tell me since you seem to think you are so selflessly putting this woman's needs above your own, what would happen if she stopped meeting your needs? What would happen if the sex dried up? Or the gifts stopped coming? or she stopped preparing your meals or whatever other need you happen to have isn't being met? Would you still selflessly provide for her and do things for her? I am willing to bet, that you would join the ranks of the hundreds of other men and women posting and complaining about how their needs aren't being met on TAM. 
Despite what you want to imagine, you are being selfish. There is nothing wrong with that, in fact it is human nature. So stop pretending the world is made up of unicorns and rainbows. You are in a good relationship. That is great! But it is because both of your selfish needs are in alignment. And again there is nothing wrong with that.
Until you can tell me that you wouldn't end it if your needs stopped being met, you are acting selfishly.


----------



## DTO (Dec 18, 2011)

Ynot said:


> Yes, yes, I get it! You are different, you are in love, you are acting selflessly to please this woman and vice versa, yada, yada, yada.
> Now tell me since you seem to think you are so selflessly putting this woman's needs above your own, what would happen if she stopped meeting your needs? What would happen if the sex dried up? Or the gifts stopped coming? or she stopped preparing your meals or whatever other need you happen to have isn't being met? Would you still selflessly provide for her and do things for her? I am willing to bet, that you would join the ranks of the hundreds of other men and women posting and complaining about how their needs aren't being met on TAM.
> Despite what you want to imagine, you are being selfish. There is nothing wrong with that, in fact it is human nature. So stop pretending the world is made up of unicorns and rainbows. You are in a good relationship. That is great! But it is because both of your selfish needs are in alignment. And again there is nothing wrong with that.
> Until you can tell me that you wouldn't end it if your needs stopped being met, you are acting selfishly.


Okay, I'm going to take one last shot at this:

* We both do more than is needed to sustain the relationship.
* I appreciate the gifts, but it would not bother me if they stopped coming.
* Sex has not been a problem - ever - since we started dating. If the sex stopped, that would mean her feelings for me had diminished, not that she didn't like sex any more. So, I would deal with it in that context.
* Thus, I would not like be the other folks on TAM. There would be no "how do I get her to understand how it bothers me" regarding sex. I chose better this time around - rather than take someone at her word that she liked me and would meet my needs after marriage (like I did with my ex-wife), I made sure that this lady DEMONSTRATED the traits that I sought in a partner: likes sex, hard worker, intelligent, compatible life outlook, and so on. And it's been that way for over a year. If it goes away, then I know she's just not into me and there's nothing to fix.

Like I said, I freely acknowledge that we are all selfish creatures to some extent. But if you are going to look at these interactions at strictly some kind of quid pro quo, where the primary or only determinant of what we do is how much we get back, you'll just not get what this is about.


----------



## SpinyNorman (Jan 24, 2018)

Ynot said:


> No one has said that a selfish act by one cannot be enjoyed by another. But the fact remains that we all act selfishly. How many threads do you have to read about men and women who's marriages are great but they aren't getting enough sex?
> The reality is that when our needs are not being met (IOW we are acting selfishly) is usually when troubles in a marriage start. And if those needs continue to remain unmet, we often act equally selfishly by choosing to divorce that partner.
> 
> The real sacrifice, is not some person who does the dishes and continues to have sex, but the person who does the dishes and gets nothing in return. IOW sacrifice hurts, it is not the result of doing/not doing something in return for something. It is giving something up in exchange for nothing. I get tired of these guys who are getting their needs met, acting like heroes, because they claim to be sacrificing, when in fact they aren't.
> ...


If having sex you enjoy is selfish, it seems like the couple who both enjoy sex is twice as selfish as the couple where only one of them does.


----------



## Anastasia6 (May 28, 2017)

Wow what a **** show of a thread hijack. I had to go back pages to find people actually talking about topic versus selfishness which has been on other thread hijacks as well.


----------



## arbitrator (Feb 13, 2012)

* @trexonabike ~ I'd have to say that the provision of marital sex is just as much a husbandly duty, just as it is a wifely duty!

At least for those who still love performing the act!*


----------



## Tony Conrad (Oct 7, 2013)

I agree. Sex is both a husbandly duty and a wifely duty unless there is a mutual agreement of no sex.
With regard to sex the only way to have unselfish sex is not to have what you like, but this defeats the whole object as it is a sharing and communion. If one of the spouses is not aroused it becomes selfish for the other. Both should talk about it and discuss it. If one is trying to be unselfish and not enjoying the sex they will eventual tire and give up. The trick is to enjoy your sex and make sure the other enjoys it as well even if it's doing something for them and then they do something for you.


----------



## fetishwife (Apr 22, 2012)

You situation and subsequent findings are exactly same as mine—-down to the x telling me her friends don’t like sex and that I’d never get more sex with another woman——now 5 years into my second marriage- we still do it daily unless we are BOTH (this is no excuse - we are both work very hard) just exhausted....and we both miss it on those days!


----------



## FeministInPink (Sep 13, 2012)

fetishwife said:


> You situation and subsequent findings are exactly same as mine—-down to the x telling me her friends don’t like sex and that I’d never get more sex with another woman——now 5 years into my second marriage- we still do it daily unless we are BOTH (this is no excuse - we are both work very hard) just exhausted....and we both miss it on those days!


Yeah, your ex was full of it.

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk


----------



## Taxman (Dec 21, 2016)

I could never live my life without passion or sex. We have that in abundance. We have many friends who admit that sex dried up sometimes after the birth of the last kid, to sometime after the last kid leaves for college. If I had to live that way, I would sooner toss myself off a ledge. They wonder why we have kept it going. I don't know, except, I never get through a day without telling her how beautiful she is, how sexy, and how much I love her, and she reciprocates. When we are in social situations we tend to hold hands or hug. My son even remarked the other night, when our house was loaded with people, how I had my arms around her when we were talking with another couple. I honestly did not remember that I was holding her, and she was relaxing into me. He said, oh, that is kind of natural for you two. I wish this on both of my kids. They have to find that one, that person that you lose all sense of time and place with. That person who is the yin to your yang and vice versa. The one that you cannot wait to see at the end of your day. So yeah, a marriage without sex, total anathema to me.


----------



## BluesPower (Mar 27, 2018)

trexonabike said:


> So I have been pondering this question based on current events and climate, and my own situation. I will have been married 25 years this summer. Our sex life has been near nonexistent since the birth of our second child 18 years ago. While I still lust after her like I did when we first met, she had zero interest in me. I've realized she actively avoids getting into situations where I might make a move and her own way to initiate sex is always started with "I guess its been a while, you're getting cranky. " I work, she's been a sahm. We get along great as partners and friends but there is zero intimacy.
> 
> That's the background for this question. If a woman has sex with a man because she feels coerced or threatened - not physically threatened, but that there could be negative repercussions to not having sex, that's sexual assault if not rape.
> i know she is only having sex with me because 1. I get cranky and irritable and its the only way to stop that. 2. She's worried I might leave her and I'm the sole source of income. 3. It's easier to give into my request for sex and just get it over with. 4. Some other woman has hit on me (actually does happen)
> ...


My thoughts are why in the world you would put up with this....EVER.

She does not find you sexually attractive if you have not already guessed. 18 Years, good grief.

She probably does not really even love you anymore. And further, the odds are that she has had at least one affair in the past 18 years. She just see you as a pay check, and someone that she has to screw every once and a while to keep you off her back.

Why do you guys stay in relationships like this????? WHY? Don't say it is for the money and the kids because that is just crap. 

Everyone deservers to be happy. I have had some bad marriages, but good god, at least we had sex all the time...


----------



## Um Excuse Me (Feb 3, 2018)

:iagree:


----------



## Sawney Beane (May 1, 2011)

trexonabike said:


> That's the background for this question. If a woman has sex with a man because she feels coerced or threatened - not physically threatened, but that there could be negative repercussions to not having sex, that's sexual assault if not rape.
> i know she is only having sex with me because 1. I get cranky and irritable and its the only way to stop that. 2. She's worried I might leave her and I'm the sole source of income. 3. It's easier to give into my request for sex and just get it over with. 4. Some other woman has hit on me (actually does happen)
> I know this is happening since she makes it very clear. So what is the the difference between this interaction and someone committing sexual assault? This is really eating away at me. It's been a couple months since the last time we had sex and based on past history she will be realizing its time for this chore. But all I can think is if we do, it's really not any different than a sexual assault.
> 
> Thoughts?


It certainly sounds like it could/might fall under the definition of "coercive or controlling behaviour in an intimate relationship". In the UK that's an offence under the Serious Crime Act 2015. It carries a penalty of up to five years, but apparently prosecutions and convictions are rare as gathering evidence of a pattern of behaviour isn't the easiest thing.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

DTO said:


> * Sex has not been a problem - ever - since we started dating. If the sex stopped, that would mean her feelings for me had diminished, not that she didn't like sex any more. So, I would deal with it in that context.


This one seems so obvious to me that many posters attach HARD to the idea that their wives don't like sex. It's the only answer that does not too badly bruise the ego. So they want to believe that HARD.



> * Thus, I would not like be the other folks on TAM. There would be no "how do I get her to understand how it bothers me" regarding sex. I chose better this time around - rather than take someone at her word that she liked me and would meet my needs after marriage (like I did with my ex-wife), I made sure that this lady DEMONSTRATED the traits that I sought in a partner: likes sex, hard worker, intelligent, compatible life outlook, and so on. And it's been that way for over a year. If it goes away, then I know she's just not into me and there's nothing to fix.
> 
> Like I said, I freely acknowledge that we are all selfish creatures to some extent. But if you are going to look at these interactions at strictly some kind of quid pro quo, where the primary or only determinant of what we do is how much we get back, you'll just not get what this is about.


And should the feelings diminish, address it quickly if you can.


----------



## Taxman (Dec 21, 2016)

I am going to ask a very obvious question. Have you talked in depth about this? Is this not worth a trip to the marriage counsellor, or for that matter, the physician? Why is her libido gone? There has to be some explanation, and you owe it to yourselves and to your marriage to get some answers. It is patently unfair to continue in this manner. Unfair to you for obvious reasons, unfair to her, as sex has become monetized: It is payment to keep you from being "cranky". Sorry sir, you really owe it to yourselves to start the process of resolving the discrepancy(ies) in libido, sexuality, intimacy etc etc etc.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11 (Feb 14, 2018)

Sounds like you bought the farm, planted the seed, fertilized the soil and now you are no longer needed. You are her glorified girlfriend. Welcome to marriage.


----------



## Ragnar Ragnasson (Mar 4, 2018)

Durn. I'm sure I missed it in the posts....But why not keep, in a kindly way, having sex with her and let all the psychology go? 
Is it she just says no repeatedly?


----------



## DTO (Dec 18, 2011)

NobodySpecial said:


> This one seems so obvious to me that many posters attach HARD to the idea that their wives don't like sex. It's the only answer that does not too badly bruise the ego. So they want to believe that HARD.


Yeah, generally one's partner not liking sex isn't the issue, but it does happen. My ex-wife, for instance, treated her second husband pretty much the way she treated me. I recall specifically that my daughter was troubled by the lack of warmth between them (he tried to pat her behind and she pushed him off - nastily). They didn't last long.

Also, a lady I dated for a few months didn't like it either. She was rarely nude, no spark, the few attempts at sex we had you could tell she was not into it. Yet she wanted to be with me was annoyed / upset that I felt chemistry was a must. And when I cut it off (there was no reason to keep going when she wanted an LTR and I wouldn't go there without mutual "spark") she copped an attitude. It's a good thing I had already learned that lesson.

My point is that there are women who don't like sex but try to maintain relationships with guys who do. It's happened to me twice, and I don't think I'm that different from the average guy.



NobodySpecial said:


> And should the feelings diminish, address it quickly if you can.


Completely agree!


----------



## Mr.Married (Feb 21, 2018)

There should be a subforum "If you want to start a thread but never return, please post here"


----------

