# Pyramids and realistic expectations



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Recently I posted about a hierarchy of sexual behavior. I did so because I keep reading posts (mostly by men) that make no sense to me. The basic flavor of those posts is this: Our sex life is weak (crawling) but I want my wife to do XYZ (running). How do I make that happen? Obviously - it never happens. And it reminds me of that highschool joke where a boy asks a girl to go for a 'lite' date like getting ice cream - and when she rejects him replies - so I guess a blowjob is entirely out of the question. 

So - where sex is concerned, and in ascending order: 
1. Commitment (respect for vows)
2. Desire to please (true love)
3. Passion (lust)

That said, I've been thnking a bit more on this topic and have constructed a related, but different pyramid. It is also in ascending order:

1. Social chemistry (your spouse craves your company and finds your presence both comforting (soothing) and exciting (fun, exciting - they like your sense of humor)
2. Physical chemistry - they crave your touch, hugs, love to sit next to you watching tv / movies
3. Sexual chemistry 

I'm thinking that a lot of men don't seem to grasp that - without (1 and 2) three is not sustainable. 

Perhaps it's better said that: without 1 amd 2, it's not realistic to expect 3.

I admit that the catalyst for this type of thinking is my own marriage. Because for M2, 1 and 2 drive most of 3. Maybe it's more simply stated this way: M2's sexual chemistry - for me - is modest. But she's sexually keen because of (1 and 2). 

Are we an anomaly?


----------



## arbitrator (Feb 13, 2012)

MEM11363 said:


> Recently I posted about a hierarchy of sexual behavior. I did so because I keep reading posts (mostly by men) that make no sense to me. The basic flavor of those posts is this: Our sex life is weak (crawling) but I want my wife to do XYZ (running). How do I make that happen? Obviously - it never happens. And it reminds me of that highschool joke where a boy asks a girl to go for a 'lite' date like getting ice cream - and when she rejects him replies - so I guess a blowjob is entirely out of the question.
> 
> So - where sex is concerned, and in ascending order:
> 1. Commitment (respect for vows)
> ...


*Anomaly? Absolutely not!
I really believe that your "pyramid" is spot-on!*


----------



## Rowan (Apr 3, 2012)

No, I don't think you are an anomaly at all. I think this is what happens in a lot of relationships. What you're saying is sort of the basic premise behind the concepts of love languages and emotional needs-meeting. 

A large part of the lackluster nature of our sex life during my marriage was not that my now-ex-husband wasn't _informed _that 1 and 2 were important in making 3 happen. Our issue was that he adamantly refused to _believe_ it. Even when I told him. Even when we read books about it. Even when our first - and then our second - therapist told him.


----------



## Anon Pink (Jan 17, 2013)

MEM11363 said:


> Recently I posted about a hierarchy of sexual behavior. I did so because I keep reading posts (mostly by men) that make no sense to me. The basic flavor of those posts is this: Our sex life is weak (crawling) but I want my wife to do XYZ (running). How do I make that happen? Obviously - it never happens. And it reminds me of that highschool joke where a boy asks a girl to go for a 'lite' date like getting ice cream - and when she rejects him replies - so I guess a blowjob is entirely out of the question.


I think this is the case with a lot of husbands (queue up the brigade who will vociferously insist they do it all) who think a wedding ring and a job puts them in line for sex on demand. 




> So - where sex is concerned, and in ascending order:
> 1. Commitment (respect for vows)
> 2. Desire to please (true love)
> 3. Passion (lust)


Number 1 is simple to decipher, number 2 is where I see many men stumble and number 3 is almost an innate character trait that a person either has or doesn't have.



> That said, I've been thnking a bit more on this topic and have constructed a related, but different pyramid. It is also in ascending order:
> 
> 1. Social chemistry (your spouse craves your company and finds your presence both comforting (soothing) and exciting (fun, exciting - they like your sense of humor)
> 2. Physical chemistry - they crave your touch, hugs, love to sit next to you watching tv / movies
> ...



Yes, but only in that you get it. You get the need to balance between loving supportive, gentle and firm boundaries, expectations. Many husbands here don't. Also, while you have a wife who is honest and many of the men here have wives who are not or they aren't hearing their wives.


----------



## Joey2k (Oct 3, 2014)

And for many men it works the other way. When you continually reject his advances (sexually), his desire to interact with you socially and do loving things for you diminishes. Even more so when we feel like we have done (or are doing to the best of our ability) 1 and 2 and she doesn't respond with 3.

Do you understand that when you say you "need" conversation, companionship and emotional connection, we "need" sex and physical affection in the same way. The big difference is that if you aren't getting enough from your man you can go talk to someone else, a girlfriend, your mother, a message board, whatever. There is no one else in the world we can go to for physical affection if our woman is rejecting us.

And it's not that we're sex-crazed, but sex is a validation that you are still into us. The lack of sex/rejection is like telling us we aren't worthy, we aren't good enough. If a man hears that enough he's likely to stop trying. 

Just some rambling thoughts that came to my head in response to the posts here.


----------



## Anon Pink (Jan 17, 2013)

Joey2k said:


> And for many men it works the other way. When you continually reject his advances (sexually), his desire to interact with you socially and do loving things for you diminishes. Even more so when we feel like we have done (or are doing to the best of our ability) 1 and 2 and she doesn't respond with 3.
> 
> Do you understand that when you say you "need" conversation, companionship and emotional connection, we "need" sex and physical affection in the same way. *The big difference is that if you aren't getting enough from your man you can go talk to someone else, a girlfriend, your mother, a message board, whatever. * There is no one else in the world we can go to for physical affection if our woman is rejecting us.
> 
> ...


Someone didn't read MEM's post fully and stopped immediately when he felt a finger pointed in his direction. Why do you think she began to reject you in the first place? How did you react to that rejection? How do you feel about your reaction? Would you judge your reaction to be a catalyst to deeper understanding?



Bolded Part: Yes, but we can't have sex with a girlfriend, a mother (yuck) or a message board.

If you, the husband, can't provide 1 and 2, 3 is off the table. If you want 3 back in the table, supply 1 and 2.


----------



## Joey2k (Oct 3, 2014)

I have some bitterness here because this is a longstanding issue in my relationship. I complain to her that 3 is lacking, she says it's because there is not enough of 1 and 2. And time after time, I have tried to take the first step and make extra effort to provide more 1 and 2, and she hasn't made any effort in response for 3. And every time I try and it doesn't yield the desired results, I find myself less and less interested in making any effort to try and give her the things she says she wants.



Anon Pink said:


> Bolded Part: Yes, but we can't have sex with a girlfriend, a mother (yuck) or a message board.


Well, there's always your husband. But you're going to deprive both of you to punish him.


----------



## Anon Pink (Jan 17, 2013)

Joey2k said:


> I have some bitterness here because this is a longstanding issue in my relationship. I complain to her that 3 is lacking, she says it's because there is not enough of 1 and 2. And time after time, I have tried to take the first step and make extra effort to provide more 1 and 2, and she hasn't made any effort in response for 3. And every time I try and it doesn't yield the desired results, I find myself less and less interested in making any effort to try and give her the things she says she wants.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, there's always your husband. But you're going to deprive both of you to punish him.



Joey, I know this is hurtful for you and I wish I could give you simple and easy to follow directions to getting laid like tile but I can't.

Women's sexuality is complicated because women are highly motivated by relationships. A rotten sex life is the symptom, not the problem. You're trying to fix the symptom without fully addressing the problem.

Do you have a thread that delves into the specifics of your sexless marriage?

You're missing the point. If our friends meet our emotional needs but our husband doesn't, why would we want to have sex with him?


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy (Jun 2, 2011)

Joey2k said:


> Do you understand that when you say you "need" conversation, companionship and emotional connection, we "need" sex and physical affection in the same way. The big difference is that if you aren't getting enough from your man you can go talk to someone else, a girlfriend, your mother, a message board, whatever. There is no one else in the world we can go to for physical affection if our woman is rejecting us.


I'd like to point out that the emotional connection with a girlfriend or Mother is much different than the one you crave with your husband. Getting the kind of romantic emotional connection with someone else would be a EA. It's not just talking.

Are you doing 1 and 2 just to get 3? How long do you work on 1 and 2 before you decide it's not working and stop? A consistent emotional connection that's not just to get in our pants is different than you spent a few days talking to her, why isn't she naked yet? KWIM?


----------



## doobie (Apr 15, 2014)

Joey2k said:


> I have some bitterness here because this is a longstanding issue in my relationship. I complain to her that 3 is lacking, she says it's because there is not enough of 1 and 2. And time after time, I have tried to take the first step and make extra effort to provide more 1 and 2, and she hasn't made any effort in response for 3. And every time I try and it doesn't yield the desired results, I find myself less and less interested in making any effort to try and give her the things she says she wants.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, there's always your husband. But you're going to deprive both of you to punish him.


It's not just women who are causing these problems - my husband is. While 1 and 2 are there, 3 is totally missing all the time. The social chemistry is there, we enjoy lively conversation on a daily basis. The physical chemistry is there - he constantly wants hugs, holding hands, snuggling up in bed, etc. However, after spending most of my married life (2 year) practically having to beg him for sex, they physical chemistry is gone on my part. I no longer want to hug him, hold his hand or snuggle up to him. Ironically he read out a post that went past on Facebook this morning that went something like this "If people constantly leave you out in the cold, why are they so annoyed when you create some warmth for yourself?". That resonated with me strongly as it seems to apply to my marriage. My husband constantly rejects sex with me (it's now been 6 months) and this had led to feelings of low self-esteem, inadequacy, a constant feeling of not being loved and cared for. A few months ago, I decided to take responsibility for my own happiness and let go of wanting to have sex with him and find other ways of supplying myself with boosts to my self esteem. I get this from the way other men look at me and interact with me. However, this has pissed off my husband big time. Although I haven't flirted with other men, I do enjoy some quite lively conversation with other men when we are out at social events. This has led to men showing an interest and flirting with me (I'm always careful not to flirt back and to keep the conversation non-sexual). My husband has seen that other men are interested in me and he's been quite angry about this when we get home. The irony is that he doesn't want me but he doesn't want anybody else to want me either.


----------



## jorgegene (May 26, 2012)

All this is true, but I see problems here;

"1. Social chemistry (your spouse craves your company and finds your presence both comforting (soothing) and exciting (fun, exciting - they like your sense of humor)"

What happens for example if you forsake sex. In other words, you pursue social chemistry for it's own sake, but your wife does not respond? 

"2. Physical chemistry - they crave your touch, hugs, love to sit next to you watching tv / movies"

Same thing. You're not pursuing sex (like most men?) but you crave and want that physical touch for it's own sake. Nothing happens.

"3. Sexual chemistry"

You don't even bother with that. If it happens it happens.

In other words, this pattern being described is the ideal perhaps and often one follows the other, but with unresponsive spouses it simply doesn't work. This describes marriage relationships that do work, not ones that don't.


----------



## Joey2k (Oct 3, 2014)

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Are you doing 1 and 2 just to get 3? How long do you work on 1 and 2 before you decide it's not working and stop? A consistent emotional connection that's not just to get in our pants is different than you spent a few days talking to her, why isn't she naked yet? KWIM?


What if I was doing 1 and 2 because I want 3? So? I'm making the effort because it's something she says she wants. But that's not enough? The fact that I'm making the effort doesn't matter, I have to actually want those things on my own without any thought about what I will get in return? 

And again, why doesn't that work both ways? It's wrong for me to try and give 1 and 2 because I want 3, but OK for her to make 3 dependent on 1 and 2? 

I don't need the talking and emotional connection the way she does, so why would I do it for its own sake? For her, because I care about her? Fine. Then shouldn't she be trying to meet my need for physical affection without making it dependent on 1 and 2?

You can't have it both ways. It's either:

1) I try to give you what you need so that you will give me what I need in return, or

2) I try to give you what you need because I love you and care about you and simply want you to be happy, and you do the same for me.

But what I'm hearing is:

You do for me just because you love me and care about me, and I'll do for you if and when I decide you've done enough for me.


----------



## Rowan (Apr 3, 2012)

Are there intensely selfish and self-centered people in the world? Absolutely.

However, I think the best you can do in a relationship is to make [email protected] sure that the selfish, self-centered, one isn't you. That means you have to make sure you're doing your part, somewhat regardless of what your partner is doing. At least as a set point. Make sure that you're meeting your partner's needs. Not what you think they are, want them to be, or decide they _should_ be - but what they actually are. If you do that consistently for a while, and make sure that your partner knows what your needs are, and he or she still won't reciprocate, then you've got a real problem. But you can't not meet your partner's needs, while expecting yours to be met. You can't meet their needs every now and again and expect better from them. And you also can't expect a 100% tit-for-tat arrangement where you do one good deed and expect to be "paid back" for it. 

A balanced give-and-take should be the goal. If you aren't getting that, make sure that you're doing your part. You can only control you. See if your partner is willing to learn to do his or hers. If not,_ then _you can honestly say you did everything you could. And then it's time to decide on an appropriate future course of action.

ETA: None of that above is gender, or even need, specific. It works both ways, no matter what needs aren't being met.


----------



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

I agree with the premise that MEM put forward. It's Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs tailored towards a sexual relationship. What I would posit is that this would be better expanded to a hierarchy for the "ideal marriage/relationship". While I think sexual attraction and chemistry is very important to a great marriage, I don't believe that it should or can be a primary goal in and of itself. I think a fulfilling sexual relationship with your spouse is a byproduct of other direct goals. 

A lot of the people who come here and complain about a sexless marriage think that the lack of sex is the primary issue in their marriage. It's not THE issue. It's the SYMPTOM of the real issue (or issues). This is true for the majority of cases I believe. However, there are situations where someone has true LD or is truly asexual. There, sex is the primary problem. Or is it? Could you then argue that the real issue is the fact that YOU decided to choose this LD/asexual person despite seeing a lack of sex in the relationship prior to marrying and you chose to settle because he/she checked most of the boxes on your list?

For those who were duped by a bait and switch, I'm sorry in that case. Sometimes, people are conniving jerk wads who intentionally misled someone about who they really were. But don't confound a true bait and switch with a sudden drop in sex due to issues affecting the marriage.


----------



## Anon Pink (Jan 17, 2013)

jorgegene said:


> All this is true, but I see problems here;
> 
> "1. Social chemistry (your spouse craves your company and finds your presence both comforting (soothing) and exciting (fun, exciting - they like your sense of humor)"
> 
> What happens for example if you forsake sex. In other words, you pursue social chemistry for it's own sake, but your wife does not respond?


You have to discover if the problem is with the giver or the receiver or both. You also have to give it time. Your wife has to be emotionally available for social chemistry to take place. If she is distracted by social media, distracted by kids, by other life stresses then she won't respond because she is not getting your message.



> "2. Physical chemistry - they crave your touch, hugs, love to sit next to you watching tv / movies"
> 
> Same thing. You're not pursuing sex (like most men?) but you crave and want that physical touch for it's own sake. Nothing happens.



Was she always physically distant or is this something that you noticed after she began to decline sex? I can't imagine an emotionally healthy woman who ostensibly is in love with her husband not responding to NONsexual affection.



> "3. Sexual chemistry"
> 
> You don't even bother with that. If it happens it happens.
> 
> In other words, this pattern being described is the ideal perhaps and often one follows the other, but with unresponsive spouses it simply doesn't work. This describes marriage relationships that do work, not ones that don't.



If your wife isn't responding to any of your attempts to create a more emotionally connected marriage, the marriage is over and someone is simply waiting to pull the plug.


----------



## jorgegene (May 26, 2012)

Me thinks the pyramid works with responsive, giving spouses (wives).

With spouses that are resistive and self centered, all bets are off.
Like Rowan says though you must do your part regardless.

Maybe what MEM is trying to say is that men need to follow a certain pattern and not pursue sex first. That should be no. 3, not number 1 or 2? Is this really a mistake a lot of men make?
Is this the real point?

However, again, that is assuming a healthy responsive spouse, otherwise the pyramid collapses.


----------



## Joey2k (Oct 3, 2014)

Anon Pink said:


> Joey, I know this is hurtful for you and I wish I could give you simple and easy to follow directions to getting laid like tile but I can't.
> 
> Women's sexuality is complicated because women are highly motivated by relationships. A rotten sex life is the symptom, not the problem. You're trying to fix the symptom without fully addressing the problem.
> 
> ...


Sorry, meant to respond but got distracted by another post. Although I did end up partially answering it. I have considered that the poor sex life is a symptom, and I have tried to give her the things she says she wants (the lack of which were causing her to not desire sex with me), many times I have tried to take the first steps to bridge the gap, and it has never resulted in a corresponding effort on her part.

And no, I have no thread of my own about this, I'm still pretty new here and it's an ongoing process deciding what and how much I divulge (and when), plus there are so many others here who seem to have the same issues that it's been helpful just to read other people's threads so far.


----------



## jorgegene (May 26, 2012)

"If your wife isn't responding to any of your attempts to create a more emotionally connected marriage, the marriage is over and someone is simply waiting to pull the plug." ANON PINK

A most unpleasant life dilemma when one realizes one has been bamboozled into marriage.

Nothing to do with my present marriage, but I HAVE been there, and a lot worse. Why I left.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

Sometimes you start building your pyramid. Levels 1 and 2 are well built and very stable, but someone doesn't want to build the next level. You're stuck with a ziggurat instead.

A ziggurat is a fine structure, but not what the architect wanted. Then it's time to find a new contractor.


----------



## UMP (Dec 23, 2014)

MEM11363 said:


> Recently I posted about a hierarchy of sexual behavior. I did so because I keep reading posts (mostly by men) that make no sense to me. The basic flavor of those posts is this: Our sex life is weak (crawling) but I want my wife to do XYZ (running). How do I make that happen? Obviously - it never happens. And it reminds me of that highschool joke where a boy asks a girl to go for a 'lite' date like getting ice cream - and when she rejects him replies - so I guess a blowjob is entirely out of the question.
> 
> So - where sex is concerned, and in ascending order:
> 1. Commitment (respect for vows)
> ...


Maybe the problem is that women want 1,2,3 in that order and men want 3,2,1 in that order.

The guy puts his foot down and wants 3 but because he is not getting 3 he is unable and cannot produce 1 and 2.

The girl puts her foot down and wants 1 and 2 but because she is not getting 1 and 2 she is unable and cannot produce 3.

Compromise is the answer. The guy does his best to trod through 1 and 2. The girl does her best to trod through 3 and eventually they meet in the middle. Hopefully the guy learns to enjoy 1 and 2 and the girls learns to enjoy 3. They both live happily ever after !

Edit: I know there are other situations that do not fit into this mold. I am only addressing the more common (I think) problem.


----------



## lifeistooshort (Mar 17, 2013)

Joey2k said:


> What if I was doing 1 and 2 because I want 3? So? I'm making the effort because it's something she says she wants. But that's not enough? The fact that I'm making the effort doesn't matter, I have to actually want those things on my own without any thought about what I will get in return?
> 
> And again, why doesn't that work both ways? It's wrong for me to try and give 1 and 2 because I want 3, but OK for her to make 3 dependent on 1 and 2?
> 
> ...



Sounds like you're providing the emotional equivalent of duty sex, and many men don't like duty sex because it's hollow. Your wife can probably sense you don't want to be there and don't really enjoy her company, but you do want to get laid. That's turnoff number one. If you really don't care for her company the marriage is over. 

Besides, you'd probably take dutyv sex now because you're starved for it but how long would that sustain you? If you can live on duty sex you have emotional unavailability problems.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Joey2k (Oct 3, 2014)

lifeistooshort said:


> Sounds like you're providing the emotional equivalent of duty sex, and many men don't like duty sex because it's hollow. Your wife can probably sense you don't want to be there and don't really enjoy her company, but you do want to get laid. That's turnoff number one. If you really don't care for her company the marriage is over.
> 
> Besides, you'd probably take dutyv sex now because you're starved for it but how long would that sustain you? If you can live on duty sex you habe emotional unavailability problems.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


So what's the answer? I don't have the same need for conversation as she does, so I have two choices:

-avoid or minimally participate in conversation because it's not as important to me
-make an effort to increase my participation for her sake, even if I don't need it

What I'm hearing is that both of these choices are wrong. And I don't see a choice #3 (at least not one in which the relationship remains intact)


----------



## soccermom2three (Jan 4, 2013)

I was going to write the same thing as Life. If you are only doing 1 and 2 because you want 3, then she probably senses it. It's easy to tell when a guy would rather play video games or whatever than spend time with you. Also, why don't you want to do 1 and 2 with your wife?


----------



## Joey2k (Oct 3, 2014)

soccermom2three said:


> I was going to write the same thing as Life. If you are only doing 1 and 2 because you want 3, then she probably senses it. It's easy to tell when a guy would rather play video games or whatever than spend time with you. Also, why don't you want to do 1 and 2 with your wife?


It's not that I don't want to do them, I don't want or need to do them to the extent that she does. And it's not that I don't want to do them with her, it's that I don't want or need to do it period, with her or anyone. I don't even like 30 minute conversations about my own hobbies and interests.

(Actually, #2 isn't a problem for me, I often feel I want that more than she does as well; for her, #1 seems to be most important, for me not so much)


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

Honestly, I think it's a circle, but to close the loop, 3 must be there first, undeniable and continuous. To close the loop and make a circle, you must then do 1 and 2, which lead to 3 and round and round you go.


----------



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

Joey2k said:


> So what's the answer? I don't have the same need for conversation as she does, so I have two choices:
> 
> -avoid or minimally participate in conversation because it's not as important to me
> *-make an effort to increase my participation for her sake, even if I don't need it*
> ...


Why would you not want to talk to your wife? That makes no sense to me. When you're out with friends, don't you talk to them about things that interest you and your group? Or are you saying that she wants to converse about things that don't interest you; however, if she wanted to talk about something you have an interest in that it would be different?

I bolded what I think is the correct answer if you two were both actively trying to improve the marriage.


----------



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

2ntnuf said:


> Honestly, I think it's a circle, but to close the loop, 3 must be there first, undeniable and continuous. To close the loop and make a circle, you must then do 1 and 2, which lead to 3 and round and round you go.


How about a 3 legged stool?


----------



## Tall Average Guy (Jul 26, 2011)

Joey2k said:


> I have considered that the poor sex life is a symptom, and I have tried to give her the things she says she wants (the lack of which were causing her to not desire sex with me), many times I have tried to take the first steps to bridge the gap, and it has never resulted in a corresponding effort on her part.


Consider that what she is asking for is not actually what she needs in this situation.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

Plan 9 from OS said:


> How about a 3 legged stool?


I knew a guy who's nickname was tripod. 

A circle makes more sense to me. Read what Anon said about the chicken or the egg. Someone has to start, but then another member said they do those things and nothing. There is no lust for their spouse there. I think someone even said lust has to be there first, or implied it. Rebuilding lust? Don't know if it comes natural to women or not. I've read so many conflicting stories. I'd like to believe it's natural and undeniable, but taking action on those feelings is a decision which comes from the value perceived in the actions and words of the spouse. Men do what it takes to get sex, until they think the reward isn't worth the cost. 

Just some thoughts. Thanks for humoring me.


----------



## Tall Average Guy (Jul 26, 2011)

MEM11363 said:


> Recently I posted about a hierarchy of sexual behavior. I did so because I keep reading posts (mostly by men) that make no sense to me. The basic flavor of those posts is this: Our sex life is weak (crawling) but I want my wife to do XYZ (running). How do I make that happen? Obviously - it never happens. And it reminds me of that highschool joke where a boy asks a girl to go for a 'lite' date like getting ice cream - and when she rejects him replies - so I guess a blowjob is entirely out of the question.
> 
> So - where sex is concerned, and in ascending order:
> 1. Commitment (respect for vows)
> ...


I agree, though don't know that you need 1 and 2 in equal measure. Our social chemistry is through the roof, but my wife is not touchy-feelly. She is perfectly fine sitting in her own chair with little snuggling. But she needs (and actually wants) some physical contact through the day. So a long hug from behind while I lightly kiss her neck, then moving on to let her finish dinner, is often all she needs.


----------



## Joey2k (Oct 3, 2014)

Plan 9 from OS said:


> Why would you not want to talk to your wife? That makes no sense to me. When you're out with friends, don't you talk to them about things that interest you and your group? Or are you saying that she wants to converse about things that don't interest you; however, if she wanted to talk about something you have an interest in that it would be different?
> 
> I bolded what I think is the correct answer if you two were both actively trying to improve the marriage.


See my response in post 26 (which came after the post you responded to)

EDIT-And I would also respond by asking why you wouldn't want to have sex with the person you are in a long term relationship with (or why you would be in a long term relationship with someone you don't want to have sex with). It is mindboggling to me that anyone would pursue sexual exclusivity with someone (in the context of a committed relationship) and then not have sex with them.



Joey2k said:


> It's not that I don't want to do them, I don't want or need to do them to the extent that she does. And it's not that I don't want to do them with her, it's that I don't want or need to do it period, with her or anyone. I don't even like 30 minute conversations about my own hobbies and interests.
> 
> (Actually, #2 isn't a problem for me, I often feel I want that more than she does as well; for her, #1 seems to be most important, for me not so much)


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening all
I think there is just too much variation to apply simple rules. Very often though it seems from discussions here that people who are not getting the sex lives that they want are not actually doing anything wrong, or failing to do anything. They just have partners who are not interested in sex.


----------



## doobie (Apr 15, 2014)

intheory said:


> I'll never understand this behavior.^^^^:scratchhead:
> 
> I hope your jealous husband wouldn't get abusive, doobie. You've always stated that he's awfully rough and inconsiderate during sex (when he is willing to have it).


He got quite abusive (verbally) last Saturday. The day started with him getting angry because he really wants a new watch (that costs a couple of thousand dollars) but can't afford one - he was actually in tears about it at one point. Then he noticed something on Facebook (a post about an art exhibition by somebody we know - we are planning to hold an exhibition of his work and this guy has actually organised his first) and ranted about that for quite some time. He then ranted about a guy who was paying me some attention last time we went out, saying that if he talks to me again, he will break his arms! He then carried on ranting about other stuff, mostly politics. Even though it was raining, I went out for a walk and didn't come home until after dark. He'd drunk half a bottle of whisky by this time. The next day, I went out for a walk earlier, just to have some peace in my head. When I arrived home, he'd started drinking again, but was on his first glass. I then told him I'd spent most of the previous day totally stressed, and parts of the day frightened of him. I told him our marriage was in pretty bad shape and that I was not happy, explaining that I've let go emotionally of things as I don't expect him to be responsible for my happiness, I took control of my own happiness. He snapped at me so I went in the other room and began to work. 10 minutes later, he came and apologised, poured the remainder of the bottle of whisky down the sink and promised to stop drinking at home, only when we go out and also vowed to start getting in shape and looking after his health. He's stuck with this so far, which is a step in the right direction. However, as for the lack of sex, I no longer want sex with him, although I would love a regular sex life. He can get pretty pissed off without having a drink, so what the future holds remains to be seen. He has never been physically abusive during an argument, just verbally. If he once raised his hand to me, the marriage would be over instantly, something he is aware of as this is what happened in my first marriage. My first husband raised his hand once to hit me, then drew back. Within a week I was in a different country and had started divorce proceedings. My husband is well aware of this and knows I would never put up with being physically abused.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

He's got problems well beyond sex. He's in a midlife crisis and has so much pressure on him, he doesn't know what to do. Cry over a watch? Isn't that a red flag? That's about where he is in life and being sorely disappointed. There will be no desire for sex, if he has these conflicts going on inside himself. He needs help, badly. His manhood is being slowly crushed. He's utterly frustrated. I didn't read where he threatened you. Reads like jealousy. He doesn't know how to please you.


----------



## UMP (Dec 23, 2014)

Joey2k said:


> So what's the answer? I don't have the same need for conversation as she does, so I have two choices:
> 
> -avoid or minimally participate in conversation because it's not as important to me
> -make an effort to increase my participation for her sake, even if I don't need it
> ...


There is a choice number 3. Learn to like conversation with your wife. My wife talks my ear off and I used to HATE it! I am probably the most introverted person you might ever meet. I have only one friend that I see maybe once a year. I hate talking to pretty much anyone. If I can "learn" how to enjoy talking with my wife, ANYONE can.


----------



## lifeistooshort (Mar 17, 2013)

UMP said:


> There is a choice number 3. Learn to like conversation with your wife. My wife talks my ear off and I used to HATE it! I am probably the most introverted person you might ever meet. I have only one friend that I see maybe once a year. I hate talking to pretty much anyone. If I can "learn" how to enjoy talking with my wife, ANYONE can.


This. I could frankly do with a lot less football then my hb but he likes it and I like spending time with him so I watch it. I like football but don't need as much as him, but I pay attention and ask questions. I understand it fairly well but it makes him happy to school me. You know what? I enjoy it even more because I make an effort to enjoy it and it's a bonding experience for us. Sometimes he'll ask if he can shut it off because he's had enough. Mission accomplished 

And he talks a lot where I usually don't. It's a strange gender reversal..... I'm a math/science nerd and he's a social liberal arts guy, but I talk to him about what interests him and make efforts to appreciate it. I'm sure he could care less about the nerd crap I spew sometimes but he still engages me. 

End result? We have sex 2-3 times per week. And plenty of times I'm tired and could go without, but I also know that I'll enjoy it and I feel like I have value beyond sex. 

Joey, i'd suspect your wife doesn't feel like she has value to you beyond sex. This is what needs to be addressed.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Fozzy (Jul 20, 2013)

MEM, how do you relate your pyramid in the situation of a HD wife/LD husband? Would you maintain that the husband is normally rejecting the wife because she's not meeting his needs for snuggling and conversation?


----------



## norajane (Feb 7, 2012)

Joey2k said:


> See my response in post 26 (which came after the post you responded to)
> 
> EDIT-And I would also respond by asking why you wouldn't want to have sex with the person you are in a long term relationship with (or why you would be in a long term relationship with someone you don't want to have sex with). It is mindboggling to me that anyone would pursue sexual exclusivity with someone (in the context of a committed relationship) and then not have sex with them.


A lot of people start dating and have the social chemistry/conversation/connection, which is why they take the relationship into 2 and 3 territory. "OMG, we stayed up all night talking about Life! We totally get each other!" 

If the marriage then turns out to be one of them doesn't continue with 1 and starts to tune out instead of being as present as they were during dating, 2 and 3 start to slide.


----------



## UMP (Dec 23, 2014)

Fozzy said:


> MEM, how do you relate your pyramid in the situation of a HD wife/LD husband? Would you maintain that the husband is normally rejecting the wife because she's not meeting his needs for snuggling and conversation?


I rarely mention this because it was probably the most idiotic thing I have ever done in my life, but I think it applies.
I am currently HD with a wife that is LD and has "good girl issues."

Back in the day, I was very young, dating a girl and just moved out of town for work. She was nice, but not a big connection sexually. She would constantly give me BJ's but we did not have sex before marriage. Anyway, I managed to lose 2 jobs in 20 minutes (long story I won't get into) and my girl friend said that her father would offer me a job. We ended up getting married. BAD MOVE. She ended up leaving me after 1.5 years. I would not go down on her and did NOT want to have sex with her often. She simply did not do it for me. She constantly begged me for sex and I was NOT into it at all. She finally (rightly so) said goodbye. At the time, I would have told you that I "loved" her and her leaving was devastating to me, at that time.

So, I am now HD but in my previous marriage was LD. All because of who I was with. I love going down on my current wife, but I hated it with my x wife. In 1.5 years I went down on my x a total of ONE time, only after months of her begging. Sometimes, the match is just f$cked up at the start.


----------



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

norajane said:


> A lot of people start dating and have the social chemistry/conversation/connection, which is why they take the relationship into 2 and 3 territory. "OMG, we stayed up all night talking about Life! We totally get each other!"
> 
> If the marriage then turns out to be one of them doesn't continue with 1 and starts to tune out instead of being as present as they were during dating, 2 and 3 start to slide.


Which is an excellent point and makes me start to think that an alternative model to the hierarchy of needs approach may be the circle or a 3 legged stool. For different people, their foundation in a pyramid may be different than MEM's pyramid. Plus some may equate the 3 examples MEM put forward as intricately woven together and be equally important. The more I think about it, the more thinking of it as a tripod stool is the ideal model. If you take one away, the rest of the marriage, sex life, etc may not be supported effectively for some people and everything crashes. A circle analogy is different in that as long as you start somewhere, you can build off it and maintain the circle. Losing one breaks the circle. 

IDK, I just know that whatever we're doing in our marriage is working. I have no idea what model we do. All I know is that we appear to have learned to expand our respective interests in order to strengthen our bonds.


----------



## Joey2k (Oct 3, 2014)

UMP said:


> There is a choice number 3. Learn to like conversation with your wife. My wife talks my ear off and I used to HATE it! I am probably the most introverted person you might ever meet. I have only one friend that I see maybe once a year. I hate talking to pretty much anyone. If I can "learn" how to enjoy talking with my wife, ANYONE can.


So I was correct, making the effort is not enough, I have to actually want it as much as she does.

Again I would turn the question around and ask why choice #3 is not her learning to enjoy sex for its own sake? It seems like every solution to every issue in the "war between the sexes" (or whatever you want to call it) is for the man to be more understanding and change everything about himself to fit with the woman's idea of what the relationship should be.


----------



## norajane (Feb 7, 2012)

Joey2k said:


> So I was correct, making the effort is not enough, I have to actually want it as much as she does.
> 
> Again I would turn the question around and ask why choice #3 is not her learning to enjoy sex for its own sake? It seems like every solution to every issue in the "war between the sexes" (or whatever you want to call it) is for the man to be more understanding and change everything about himself to fit with the woman's idea of what the relationship should be.


Because sex is supposed to be fun. And when it isn't fun, it sucks and you stop wanting to do it. Sex stops being fun if you are disconnected from your partner, such as when 1 and/or 2 are missing. 

There is no fun in duty sex. There is no fun in feeling like your partner only cares about sex and isn't the least bit concerned about maintaining an emotional and intellectual connection with you as well.


----------



## UMP (Dec 23, 2014)

Joey2k said:


> So I was correct, making the effort is not enough, I have to actually want it as much as she does.
> 
> Again I would turn the question around and ask why choice #3 is not her learning to enjoy sex for its own sake? It seems like every solution to every issue in the "war between the sexes" (or whatever you want to call it) is for the man to be more understanding and change everything about himself to fit with the woman's idea of what the relationship should be.



I think in GENERAL men are to LEAD the relationship in the direction it NEEDS to go. We can all ask "why" till we're blue in the face and NOTHING will change. Take the lead and do what needs to be done. All I can say, using my marriage as an example, if you lead, more than likely, your wife will follow. It's up to you.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

I do wonder about that. 

I mean I wonder how that must feel to the LD person - if they feel the HD partner is primarily doing stuff to 'get' sex from them. 

I realize I am very lucky - because I honestly don't tie any of my behavior with M2 to sex. I don't 'do stuff' expecting to get sex.

But that's partly because I LIKE spending time with M2 and that is very obvious to her. 

I'm never doing this kind of math: I just spent X dollars and Y hours on you so I've earned at least a decent sexual encounter. 

And yes I'm keenly aware that husbands don't verbalize this to their wives - but if you are thinking it - that's sad. 

I would not remain in a marriage like that. 







lifeistooshort said:


> Sounds like you're providing the emotional equivalent of duty sex, and many men don't like duty sex because it's hollow. Your wife can probably sense you don't want to be there and don't really enjoy her company, but you do want to get laid. That's turnoff number one. If you really don't care for her company the marriage is over.
> 
> Besides, you'd probably take dutyv sex now because you're starved for it but how long would that sustain you? If you can live on duty sex you have emotional unavailability problems.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

norajane said:


> A lot of people start dating and have the social conversation/connection, which is why they take the relationship into 2 and 3 territory. "OMG, we stayed up all night talking about Life! We totally get each other!"
> 
> If the marriage then turns out to be one of them doesn't continue with 1 and starts to tune out instead of being as present as they were during dating, 2 and 3 start to slide.


1 isn't even in the first paragraph. Yeah, I took it out, cause conversation and connection on a social level have nothing to do with wanting to ravage her body. Sure, a woman needs those to have sex, but are you saying she doesn't have to have that I want you inside me feeling, first, and it's all just about how he talks with her and listens? I don't think so. Not from what I've read at TAM. Someone is either in denial or posting false information to throw off men. I'm not blaming you for that, but those who it fits can feel it for themselves. 

Yeah, that social part is great for when there is nothing to do and no one wants sex, but it isn't necessary for sex(for a man to want sex), but lust or chemical attraction is. 

And it doesn't mean she isn't attractive. It means she isn't attractive to him. Which is exactly what I was posting about previously.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Yes 




Tall Average Guy said:


> I agree, though don't know that you need 1 and 2 in equal measure. Our social chemistry is through the roof, but my wife is not touchy-feelly. She is perfectly fine sitting in her own chair with little snuggling. But she needs (and actually wants) some physical contact through the day. So a long hug from behind while I lightly kiss her neck, then moving on to let her finish dinner, is often all she needs.


----------



## norajane (Feb 7, 2012)

2ntnuf said:


> 1 isn't even in the first paragraph. Yeah, I took it out, cause conversation and connection on a social level have nothing to do with wanting to ravage her body. Sure, a woman needs those to have sex, but are you saying she doesn't have to have that I want you inside me feeling, first, and it's all just about how he talks with her and listens? I don't think so. Not from what I've read at TAM. Someone is either in denial or posting false information to throw off men. I'm not blaming you for that, but those who it fits can feel it for themselves.
> 
> Yeah, that social part is great for when there is nothing to do and no one wants sex, but it isn't necessary for sex(for a man to want sex), but lust or chemical attraction is.
> 
> And it doesn't mean she isn't attractive. It means she isn't attractive to him. Which is exactly what I was posting about previously.


Speaking for myself only, I might feel chemistry and lust right away without 1 and 2, but it will never, ever, ever, get to a long term relationship or marriage stage for me without 1 and 2 as well. I need those to proceed to long term relationship AND to maintain that long term relationship. 

So if I have all 3 and get into a long term relationship, 3 will start to die out if 1 and 2 dwindle or disappear.


----------



## Joey2k (Oct 3, 2014)

norajane said:


> Because sex is supposed to be fun. And when it isn't fun, it sucks and you stop wanting to do it. Sex stops being fun if you are disconnected from your partner, such as when 1 and/or 2 are missing.
> 
> There is no fun in duty sex. There is no fun in feeling like your partner only cares about sex and isn't the least bit concerned about maintaining an emotional and intellectual connection with you as well.


Your statement is equally valid if you substitute "conversation" for "sex" (or the gist of it). The conclusions RE each seem to be opposite, however.

If the woman doesn't want sex, the man has done something wrong (or not done something right).

If the man does not want conversation, the man is in the wrong.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Joey,

Why did you get married? 

You sound incompatible. 

And I have news for you my man - when it comes to sex - lying is the norm - not the exception. 

HD partnes lie about the other folks they are flirting with / bedding

LD spouses feign sexual chemistry or at least a willingness to have sex until they create enough relationship stability to feel safe being themselves. 

There is a very good chance the following is true: 

Your wife feels the same way about sex, that you feel about 30 minute conversations. Doesn't enjoy the experience. 







Joey2k said:


> It's not that I don't want to do them, I don't want or need to do them to the extent that she does. And it's not that I don't want to do them with her, it's that I don't want or need to do it period, with her or anyone. I don't even like 30 minute conversations about my own hobbies and interests.
> 
> (Actually, #2 isn't a problem for me, I often feel I want that more than she does as well; for her, #1 seems to be most important, for me not so much)


----------



## Young at Heart (Jan 6, 2015)

This has been an interesting discussion to read, but marital relationships are much more complicated. Yes, the pyramid is a interesting framework within which to view a marriage. 

My 2 cents. However, there are other frameworks out there that can better help us examine what aspects are working or not working within a relationship. Personally, I think that Dr. Harley and Dr Chapman explain interpersonal chemistry in a marriage far better. 

I also think that Dr. Schnarch with his concept of personal growth with natural discomfort and with blanaced differentiation, while a really hard read, is so very true for figuring out what is wrong in a relationship.

All of the examples and personal stories can be analyzed with different frameworks, sometimes better showing the problem.

It doesn't mean that the pyramid of needs/wants is worthless.


----------



## norajane (Feb 7, 2012)

Joey2k said:


> Your statement is equally valid if you substitute "conversation" for "sex". The conclusions RE each seem to be opposite, however.
> 
> If the woman doesn't want sex, the man has done something wrong (or not done something right).
> 
> If the man does not want conversation, the man is in the wrong.


Nobody is wrong. They're just not right for each other if they don't actually _enjoy _each other.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

YES




norajane said:


> Speaking for myself only, I might feel chemistry and lust right away without 1 and 2, but it will never, ever, ever, get to a long term relationship or marriage stage for me without 1 and 2 as well. I need those to proceed to long term relationship AND to maintain that long term relationship.
> 
> So if I have all 3 and get into a long term relationship, 3 will start to die out if 1 and 2 dwindle or disappear.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

norajane said:


> Speaking for myself only, I might feel chemistry and lust right away without 1 and 2, but it will never, ever, ever, get to a long term relationship or marriage stage for me without 1 and 2 as well. I need those to proceed to long term relationship AND to maintain that long term relationship.
> 
> So if I have all 3 and get into a long term relationship, 3 will start to die out if 1 and 2 dwindle or disappear.


Thank you very much for the validation.

BadSanta, When men age, they sometimes change what is important and don't realize, and sex can take a lower priority. To confirm, check with the makers of viagra, cialis, etc. Aren't some of those ed problems from health and from natural changes in thinking as well?


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

YAH,

Sure - those folks all have relationship cookbooks. They explain the recipes for getting to a good outcome. And that's great. 

I simply believe it's best to have a simple way to assess where you 'are' in simple, easy to understand terms. 





Young at Heart said:


> This has been an interesting discussion to read, but marital relationships are much more complicated. Yes, the pyramid is a interesting framework within which to view a marriage.
> 
> My 2 cents. However, there are other frameworks out there that can better help us examine what aspects are working or not working within a relationship. Personally, I think that Dr. Harley and Dr Chapman explain interpersonal chemistry in a marriage far better.
> 
> ...


----------



## Joey2k (Oct 3, 2014)

norajane said:


> Nobody is wrong. They're just not right for each other if they don't actually _enjoy _each other.


I've been afraid for a while that this is ultimately the correct answer to my situation.

Thing is, I'm pretty happy with our relationship for the most part except for our sex life. A few complaints but nobody's perfect, and nothing I can't live with. She makes me happy except for that one thing, but it's a dealbreaker if it can't be resolved.


----------



## Rowan (Apr 3, 2012)

Joey2k said:


> I've been afraid for a while that this is ultimately the correct answer to my situation.
> 
> Thing is, I'm pretty happy with our relationship for the most part except for our sex life. A few complaints but nobody's perfect, and nothing I can't live with. *She makes me happy except for that one thing*, but it's a dealbreaker if it can't be resolved.


Do you make her happy? What are her top emotional needs? Are you consistently meeting them? 

The two of you don't have to have the same top needs - and likely won't. What you do have to have is an understanding of one another's needs - and a _willingness to cheerfully meet those needs even if you don't share them_.


----------



## Rowan (Apr 3, 2012)

MEM11363 said:


> I do wonder about that.
> 
> I mean I wonder how that must feel to the LD person - if they feel the HD partner is primarily doing stuff to 'get' sex from them.
> 
> ...



Oh, I think you'd be amazed at what some husbands verbalize to their wives.....


----------



## Joey2k (Oct 3, 2014)

Rowan said:


> Do you make her happy? What are her top emotional needs? Are you consistently meeting them?
> 
> The two of you don't have to have the same top needs - and likely won't. What you do have to have is an understanding of one another's need - and a _willingness to cheerfully meet those needs even if you don't share them_.


As I said, I've tried to provide what she says she wants. I've tried to engage in conversation, be more attentive, and listen to her more. At least I feel like I have, and I haven't seen any corresponding effort on her part to be more affectionate.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

I admit to not 'getting' the date night thing.

M2 would genuinely feel BAD if she thought My main motivation to take her on a date was to get her to have sex with me. 

Just as I would feel awful if I felt like I had to earn sex by taking her on a date. 




Rowan said:


> Oh, I think you'd be amazed at what some husbands verbalize to their wives.....


----------



## Rowan (Apr 3, 2012)

Joey2k said:


> As I said, I've tried to provide what she says she wants. I've tried to engage in conversation, be more attentive, and listen to her more. At least I feel like I have, and I haven't seen any corresponding effort on her part to be more affectionate.


Affectionate? Or sexual? There's a difference. When you say and hear "affection", you probably mean sex. When your wife says and hears "affection", she probably means non-sexual affection. Make sure that both of you understand what you mean when you ask her to be more affectionate. Give her concrete examples of what her meeting that need would look like to you

It's too bad that you've made a consistent, sustained effort to meet her need for conversation (I presume that's her top need from what you've said) and aren't seeing any reciprocation. What does she say when you two calmly discuss the lack of reciprocation from her?


----------



## Rowan (Apr 3, 2012)

MEM11363 said:


> I admit to not 'getting' the date night thing.
> 
> M2 would genuinely feel BAD if she thought My main motivation to take her on a date was to get her to have sex with me.
> 
> Just as I would feel awful if I felt like I had to earn sex by taking her on a date.


Yeah, the directly transactional approach to a relationship didn't work for me. At all.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy (Jun 2, 2011)

Joey2k said:


> As I said, I've tried to provide what she says she wants. I've tried to engage in conversation, be more attentive, and listen to her more. *At least I feel like I have*, and I haven't seen any corresponding effort on her part to be more affectionate.


Does she feel like you have? 
Does she give you any specific examples of what she would like?


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

MEM11363 said:


> I admit to not 'getting' the date night thing.
> 
> M2 would genuinely feel BAD if she thought My main motivation to take her on a date was to get her to have sex with me.
> 
> Just as I would feel awful if I felt like I had to earn sex *by taking her on a date.*


Isn't this part of acts of service, which many women seem to have as a need? If not taking out to dinner, it's taking out the garbage, doing the dishes, etc. Not saying that's bad, just saying it is reality. Combine that with some sweet words of affirmation and gentle touch.. voila. So much dancing around with one doing the tango and the other the waltz. No one listens to the rumba that's playing. 

As someone stated to me, it's part of getting sex, but not getting long-term commitment. Natural desire must be there for that. It can be nurtured, but that's only good short-term.


----------



## lifeistooshort (Mar 17, 2013)

MEM11363 said:


> I do wonder about that.
> 
> I mean I wonder how that must feel to the LD person - if they feel the HD partner is primarily doing stuff to 'get' sex from them.
> 
> ...




Completely agree, I wouldn't remain in such a marriage either. I like hanging out with my hb and I think he likes hanging out with me (he does it a lot). He might be thinking about sex during our dates but I don't get the feeling we're hanging out just for sex, we may or may not have sex after. And if not there's always tomorrow. 

Marriages aren't businesses, and conversely I can't imagine having sex with my hb and thinking that I'd just put put so he owes me cleaning or a trip to the mall. One doesn't explicitly lead to the other, they're all part of a partnership. 

I do know that if I felt like he was tolerating my company because he was horn that would be the end of our sex life.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Wolf1974 (Feb 19, 2014)

UMP said:


> Maybe the problem is that women want 1,2,3 in that order and men want 3,2,1 in that order.
> 
> The guy puts his foot down and wants 3 but because he is not getting 3 he is unable and cannot produce 1 and 2.
> 
> ...


And that's it. The key to a successful marriage. You have criteria 123. Other partner 321. Both work to make sure the other is getting what they want and need then no issues. 

The ultimate which comes first the chicken or the egg


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

Long-term? Sexual desire in compatible amounts.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

That's a very healthy view.

And it's perfectly normal for HB to think about sex when he's with you. If you had the same amount of testosterone that he does - you would also think about sex a lot. 

I believe normal folk can easily tell how much someone is into them socially, affection wise and sexually. 






lifeistooshort said:


> Completely agree, I wouldn't remain in such a marriage either. I like hanging out with my hb and I think he likes hanging out with me (he does it a lot). He might be thinking about sex during our dates but I don't get the feeling we're hanging out just for sex, we may or may not have sex after. And if not there's always tomorrow.
> 
> Marriages aren't businesses, and conversely I can't imagine having sex with my hb and thinking that I'd just put put so he owes me cleaning or a trip to the mall. One doesn't explicitly lead to the other, they're all part of a partnership.
> 
> ...


----------



## ocotillo (Oct 17, 2011)

Joey2k said:


> You do for me just because you love me and care about me, and I'll do for you if and when I decide you've done enough for me.


I can see that you understand how the system works...

All humor aside though, I think what you've said above is a rules-based sense of fairness speaking. 

Some people don't share that sense of fairness. Some people (Apparently more than a few women) have an outcome based sense of fairness where what matters is the end result and not who did how much of what to get there. Neither one is right or wrong and both of them can be abused. 

I know this doesn't take the sting out of being told that you're the one who's going to have to rise above his nature and fix things even though you probably feel that you're already the injured party here. 

If it helps, try to focus on the end result. (i.e. Both of you are happy.)


----------



## Joey2k (Oct 3, 2014)

Rowan said:


> Affectionate? Or sexual?


Either. She rarely if ever initiates any affection, sexual or otherwise, beyond a kiss or hug when she gets home from work. And she usually doesn't respond to my initiation in a way that makes me feel like she wants me to continue



> It's too bad that you've made a consistent, sustained effort to meet her need for conversation (I presume that's her top need from what you've said) and aren't seeing any reciprocation. What does she say when you two calmly discuss the lack of reciprocation from her?


That's what she tells me her top need is. She apparently doesn't think or notice that I make any effort. Whatever I am doing isn't enough, no matter how far out of my comfort zone I've taken it. I feel like the fact that I don't recall every word of every story she relates to me or that I am sometimes preoccupied with something else when she wants to talk completely negate all the effort I try to put in.


EDIT: MEM11363, I'm sorry I kind of hijacked your thread


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

She isn't attracted to you any more. If she was, she'd see a needle in a haystack. Sorry man.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

I think they would just be more decisive about what is really going on and how to change it. Look at the peri threads. Decisive, and someone else gets 2 and 3, based on 1 and real attraction which they didn't feel as strongly about earlier and settled. I think men would be more aggressive to initiate, but would also make a damn decision much more quickly.


----------



## lifeistooshort (Mar 17, 2013)

MEM11363 said:


> That's a very healthy view.
> 
> And it's perfectly normal for HB to think about sex when he's with you. If you had the same amount of testosterone that he does - you would also think about sex a lot.
> 
> I believe normal folk can easily tell how much someone is into them socially, affection wise and sexually.


I do to think about sex a lot, as I suspect a lot of women do. More then many men realize. The kicker is that I like my hb and desire sex with him so I think about him (not exclusively, we all have our little fantasies but they are just that and stay there), but most of the time. Your wife probably genuinely likes you and senses that you like her, and is sexually into you to the extent she can be. That's why you have a sex life, at least that's my interpretation.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

I LIKE taking M2 on dates. Like playing pool or mini golf or whatever with her. 

And FWIW, if I abstract the marriage down to:
Social chemistry: 5 (on a 0-5 scale)
NSA chemistry: 4.5 (0-5 scale)

Sexual chemistry 
- me to M2: 4
- M2 to me: 2 

And yet, for me, the sexual part of the relationship is a 4. (On a 0-5 scale). 

Despite a mix of guilt and fear - M2 manages to be honest with me. Doesn't pretend. Doesn't lie. 

It's easy to tell someone the truth when you know that the truth happens to correspond with what they want to hear. 

Whole different situation when the truth is 180 degrees out of synch with your partners desire. 

M2 is very primal. The thing that created passion for her - for most of our marriage - was volatility. 

But I'm no longer contributing my half of the volatility. 

It's kind of funny - the thing that consistently got M2 hot - was a day or two of icy relations...

More simply - what ALWAYS made M2 hot - was fear. Her fear of loss. Loss of the marriage. Fighting and fvcking. 





2ntnuf said:


> Isn't this part of acts of service, which many women seem to have as a need? If not taking out to dinner, it's taking out the garbage, doing the dishes, etc. Not saying that's bad, just saying it is reality. Combine that with some sweet words of affirmation and gentle touch.. voila. So much dancing around with one doing the tango and the other the waltz. No one listens to the rumba that's playing.
> 
> As someone stated to me, it's part of getting sex, but not getting long-term commitment. Natural desire must be there for that. It can be nurtured, but that's only good short-term.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Prior to menopause M2 definitely thought about sex on a regular basis - for herself. 

Not so much anymore....




lifeistooshort said:


> I do to think about sex a lot, as I suspect a lot of women do. More then many men realize. The kicker is that I like my hb and desire sex with him so I think about him (not exclusively, we all have our little fantasies but they are just that and stay there), but most of the time. Your wife probably genuinely likes you and senses that you like her, and is sexually into you to the extent she can be. That's why you have a sex life, at least that's my interpretation.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

Liking to do those things with her is what makes you two compatible or helps. Basic mechanics is what we were talking, with the exception of sexual attraction, which is not something learned. It either is or is not there.

I'm not disagreeing with what works for you. I figure if folks don't realize they don't like to be with someone, they won't get married, unless they are really rotten people. I didn't even address or think of that possibility. I thought it was stating the obvious.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

I think a LOT of LD people marry folks for whom they feel very little sexual chemistry. 




2ntnuf said:


> Liking to do those things with her is what makes you two compatible or helps. Basic mechanics is what we were talking, with the exception of sexual attraction, which is not something learned. It either is or is not there.
> 
> I'm not disagreeing with what works for you. I figure if folks don't realize they don't like to be with someone, they won't get married, unless they are really rotten people. I didn't even address or think of that possibility. I thought it was stating the obvious.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

MEM11363 said:


> I think a LOT of LD people marry folks for whom they feel very little sexual chemistry.


Or, they have very little sexual chemistry with the one they marry? 

I only disagree with it in theory because I know it happens, but we cannot know if every LD is actually LD with every other person in the world. I am looking at LD as naturally occurring, not as something created through religious upbringing, child abuse, or some other influence in their formative years. 

I know there are women out there I am greatly attracted to. I've met them, but the problem is, they aren't attracted to me, or they aren't meeting other criteria that I value as much as sexual attraction, to allow me to pursue. At issue then, might only be that folks don't realize sexual attraction cannot be created or nurtured. It has to be there, and I mean strong sexual attraction. 

That combination of total compatibility is really tough to find, hence, many of the issues here at SIM.


----------



## Fozzy (Jul 20, 2013)

ocotillo said:


> I can see that you understand how the system works...
> 
> All humor aside though, I think what you've said above is a rules-based sense of fairness speaking.
> 
> ...


:iagree:

I think this is what sticks in a lot of people's craw like Joey--the fact that in on paper, both parties will make the equal effort to meet each others needs, but in cold reality the LD ALWAYS controls the relationship. 3 is always predicated on 1 and 2 for them. The fact that 3 is just as important to you as 1 or 2 is to them means bupkus. The LD will NOT EVER prioritize number 3 for you in the way you will have to prioritize 1 and 2.

Unfair? sure, but that's life I guess.


----------



## norajane (Feb 7, 2012)

Fozzy said:


> :iagree:
> 
> I think this is what sticks in a lot of people's craw like Joey--the fact that in on paper, both parties will make the equal effort to meet each others needs, but in cold reality the LD ALWAYS controls the relationship. 3 is always predicated on 1 and 2 for them. The fact that 3 is just as important to you as 1 or 2 is to them means bupkus. The LD will NOT EVER prioritize number 3 for you in the way you will have to prioritize 1 and 2.
> 
> Unfair? sure, but that's life I guess.


It's not about not prioritizing it, as though they can change the priority of their 1, 2, and 3. It's about not _feeling _it, not _wanting _it, if 1 and 2 are not present.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

@ Fozzy,
Divorce solves that. That's the variable missing that makes the equation solvable. 

What do you want if you can't have it all in this relationship/marriage?
Who can make that happen if no one else will do it for you?
Poop or get off the pot because it's really you that is holding you back from what you really want, or, you really don't want what you claim.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Fozzy,
I do agree it isn't 50-50 in terms of effort. 

But as for the LD totally being in control that is NOT my experience. 

Either I'm important to M2 or I'm not. If I am, than a certain amount of good faith effort goes into our sex life. 

And because she's important to me, I make sure she doesn't feel bad about the gap between 'perfection' and 'reality'. Quite the contrary. I routinely say: I feel very lucky. 







Fozzy said:


> :iagree:
> 
> I think this is what sticks in a lot of people's craw like Joey--the fact that in on paper, both parties will make the equal effort to meet each others needs, but in cold reality the LD ALWAYS controls the relationship. 3 is always predicated on 1 and 2 for them. The fact that 3 is just as important to you as 1 or 2 is to them means bupkus. The LD will NOT EVER prioritize number 3 for you in the way you will have to prioritize 1 and 2.
> 
> Unfair? sure, but that's life I guess.


----------



## Fozzy (Jul 20, 2013)

norajane said:


> It's not about not prioritizing it, as though they can change the priority of their 1, 2, and 3. It's about not _feeling _it, not _wanting _it, if 1 and 2 are not present.


Right, that's basically what I said. 3 is predicated on 1 and 2. For the other half of the marriage, 3 is NOT predicated on 1 and 2. 

Prioritizing is probably the wrong word by itself. I probably should have said the desire to meet the others' primary needs are not prioritized when the other's need happens to be sex. 

So if I'm the LD, and I require cuddling and conversation as my primary needs--i'm simply not going to be interested in meeting my partner's need for sex until MY needs are met. Period.

If I'm the HD, there's a much better chance that I'll bend over backward to meet my spouse's needs before mine are met.

This sounds transactional, and often is, but it doesn't HAVE to be. I think the native DESIRE to meet your partner's needs is just not strong enough for a lot of LD people to get them to the point of saying "yeah, this is important for my spouse, so I'm going to do it because I want them to be happy". The ability for the LD to provide 1 and 2 for their partner is easy for them, because that's how THEY like it. 

It's difficult sometimes for the HD to pony up the 1 and 2 when 3 has been starving in the gutter for months, but there's a better chance of it happening than the reverse.


----------



## skype (Sep 25, 2013)

MEM11363 said:


> Fozzy,
> 
> But as for the LD totally being in control that is NOT my experience.


But MEM, you have figured out how to use humor and an intense reading of your wife's psychology to keep her interested in sex with you. She also wants to please you, a crucial element in a marriage.

I suspect that these other LD wives are not interested in pleasing their husbands. They don't bother to consider how they become aroused. They don't understand how important a sexual connection is to their husbands. They don't allow time for responsive desire to take hold.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

Responsive desire means there is little to no natural sexual attraction.


----------



## Fozzy (Jul 20, 2013)

2ntnuf said:


> Responsive desire means there is little to no natural sexual attraction.


That's an interesting way of looking at RD. Not sure if I agree with it or not, but it's worth consideration. Probably deserves its own thread.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

Fozzy said:


> That's an interesting way of looking at RD. Not sure if I agree with it or not, but it's worth consideration. Probably deserves its own thread.


It is. Start one. I'll be there.


----------



## skype (Sep 25, 2013)

Fozzy said:


> That's an interesting way of looking at RD. Not sure if I agree with it or not, but it's worth consideration. Probably deserves its own thread.


It would be a good thread. I think it is real because I have it about 25% of the time. I may not be in the mood initially, but I nurture arousal because I know that a strong sex life is crucial to our marriage. I am always glad that I did.


----------



## Big Dude (Feb 24, 2013)

MEM, how do you reconcile this pyramid with the oft mentioned tactic of destabilizing the marriage to address sexual mismatch problems?

I'd bet a year's salary that my wife feels that 1 and 2 are met in almost storybook fashion in our marriage. And yet I saw her taking number 3 seriously only when I began to withdraw 1 and 2.


----------



## norajane (Feb 7, 2012)

Fozzy said:


> Right, that's basically what I said. 3 is predicated on 1 and 2. For the other half of the marriage, 3 is NOT predicated on 1 and 2.
> 
> Prioritizing is probably the wrong word by itself. I probably should have said the desire to meet the others' primary needs are not prioritized when the other's need happens to be sex.
> 
> ...


They might have the _desire _to meet their partner's needs, but have little desire for sex. So if they do it just to meet their partner's needs, you're back to duty sex. And no, I can't imagine any LD partner cheerfully wanting to give duty sex _constantly_. That will send their LD into hiding and it will turn into active loathing over time. I cannot stress that enough. Someone who has sex when they themselves aren't into it, to just to please their partner, over time, will come to loathe sex and their partner.

And if this is intended for both genders, how many MEN would actually give duty sex to their HD wives? Give her all the oral she wants while their penis remains uninterested and unstirred? Would they it cheerfully do that 3-4 times a week if their penis never stirred and they never had orgasms? How long would that continue cheerfully?

There are some people with low drives married to high drives, and there are some people with relationships that need work or are not compatible. Some couples have both problems.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Big Dude,

First of all - give yourself a big pat on the back. I sincerely mean that. Because you are an excellent partner. 

If you weren't - your wife would not have responded the way she did to the withdrawal of 1 and 2. 

Let's not confuse two completely separate points:
- Being a highly desirable source of socializing and affection
WITH
- Providing those unconditionally

I try hard to minimize my use of the phrase below - so when I DO use it - it has a real impact. 

I MATTER TOO

That's it. That's all I say. 

I'm the one irreplaceable person in M2's life. I very rarely have to remind her of that. 








Big Dude said:


> MEM, how do you reconcile this pyramid with the oft mentioned tactic of destabilizing the marriage to address sexual mismatch problems?
> 
> I'd bet a year's salary that my wife feels that 1 and 2 are met in almost storybook fashion in our marriage. And yet I saw her taking number 3 seriously only when I began to withdraw 1 and 2.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Oh Norajane, Norajane.

You're killin me. 

Three times in a row - M2 was feeling nothing. Nada. Zip. Zero. 
Not responsive desire. No desire. 

After the third time I disrupted our routine. I playfully but determinedly avoided sex. 

Because I AM afraid of the outcome you describe.....





norajane said:


> They might have the _desire _to meet their partner's needs, but have little desire for sex. So if they do it just to meet their partner's needs, you're back to duty sex. And no, I can't imagine any LD partner cheerfully wanting to give duty sex _constantly_. That will send their LD into hiding and it will turn into active loathing over time. I cannot stress that enough. Someone who has sex when they themselves aren't into it, to just to please their partner, over time, will come to loathe sex and their partner.
> 
> And if this is intended for both genders, how many MEN would actually give duty sex to their HD wives? Give her all the oral she wants while their penis remains uninterested and unstirred? Would they it cheerfully do that 3-4 times a week if their penis never stirred and they never had orgasms? How long would that continue cheerfully?
> 
> There are some people with low drives married to high drives, and there are some people with relationships that need work or are not compatible. Some couples have both problems.


----------



## ocotillo (Oct 17, 2011)

norajane said:


> ...how many MEN would actually give duty sex to their HD wives? Give her all the oral she wants while their penis remains uninterested and unstirred? Would they it cheerfully do that 3-4 times a week if their penis never stirred and they never had orgasms? How long would that continue cheerfully?


I understand and agree with your point completely, norajane. 

At the same time though, it's tough to compare sexual response between men and women, because we really are very different in this respect. Arousal does not automatically equal erection and for most men, orgasm is as natural as a sneeze. 

--Which is why rules based systems of fairness might appeal to men, but they just don't work at all when it comes to sex.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

And for context - during this totally passionless timeframe, M2 has been: 
- Super loving and playful
And
- Gone out of her way to volunteer: I am totally in love with you (without being prompted by me in any way) 

After dodging her for a week - she nailed me Saturday morning - and at least she seemed somewhat turned on. 






norajane said:


> They might have the _desire _to meet their partner's needs, but have little desire for sex. So if they do it just to meet their partner's needs, you're back to duty sex. And no, I can't imagine any LD partner cheerfully wanting to give duty sex _constantly_. That will send their LD into hiding and it will turn into active loathing over time. I cannot stress that enough. Someone who has sex when they themselves aren't into it, to just to please their partner, over time, will come to loathe sex and their partner.
> 
> And if this is intended for both genders, how many MEN would actually give duty sex to their HD wives? Give her all the oral she wants while their penis remains uninterested and unstirred? Would they it cheerfully do that 3-4 times a week if their penis never stirred and they never had orgasms? How long would that continue cheerfully?
> 
> There are some people with low drives married to high drives, and there are some people with relationships that need work or are not compatible. Some couples have both problems.


----------



## norajane (Feb 7, 2012)

MEM11363 said:


> Oh Norajane, Norajane.
> 
> You're killin me.
> 
> ...


I have no doubt she loves you that much more for paying attention to her feelings.


----------



## norajane (Feb 7, 2012)

ocotillo said:


> I understand and agree with your point completely, norajane.
> 
> At the same time though, it's tough to compare sexual response between men and women, because we really are very different in this respect. Arousal does not automatically equal erection and for most men, orgasm is as natural as a sneeze.
> 
> --Which is why rules based systems of fairness might appeal to men, but they just don't work at all when it comes to sex.


Absolutely! 

Though there are LD men out there, so maybe they can relate?


----------



## norajane (Feb 7, 2012)

MEM11363 said:


> And for context - during this totally passionless timeframe, M2 has been:
> - Super loving and playful
> And
> - Gone out of her way to volunteer: I am totally in love with you (without being prompted by me in any way)
> ...


----------



## lifeistooshort (Mar 17, 2013)

MEM11363 said:


> I think a LOT of LD people marry folks for whom they feel very little sexual chemistry.


I can't speak for guys but one of the reasons women do this is because women are raised to consider other things, like what kind of provider he'll be. A woman who went home to her family and told them a rich guy wanted her but she wasn't attracted to him would catch hvll. A guy, otoh, is encouraged to pursue women he's attracted to.

Everyone who buys into the idea that men should provide above and beyond women buys into this, as it's this very mentality that perpetuates it. If a woman is to depend on a man to provide whether she's attracted to him will be a low priority. in addition, there are still men who don't want terribly sexually experienced women as wives, so somehow she should suppress her sexuality until he gets her and then she should become a porn star. But women need to explore what they like to be sexual. 

The answer, I think, is more financial and sexual equality. A woman who is self sufficient will be freed up to find a guy she's attracted to.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Yes. 

I have chosen to focus on one theme. Honesty. I can accept a lack of sexual passion - whether or not it's temporary. 

I cannot bear the idea of M2 - faking it - with me. Because that would mean she doesn't trust me enough to be herself - around me. 

So - instead of having a counterproductive conversation about her lack of passion - I keep saying: The thing I love MOST about you is that you don't lie to me - don't decieve me - don't pretend with me. 








norajane said:


> I have no doubt she loves you that much more for paying attention to her feelings.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

We earned the same income when we met. 

M2 was however determined to be a SAHM. So guys who couldn't make that happen were not in her consideration set. 

That said - there were a couple doctors who pursued her - and she walked away from them because they were 'deadly boring'....




lifeistooshort said:


> I can't speak for guys but one of the reasons women do this is because women are raised to consider other things, like what kind of provider he'll be. A woman who went home to her family and told them a rich guy wanted her but she wasn't attracted to him would catch hvll. A guy, otoh, is encouraged to pursue women he's attracted to.
> 
> Everyone who buys into the idea that men should provide above and beyond women buys into this, as it's this very mentality that perpetuates it. If a woman is to depend on a man to provide whether she's attracted to him will be a low priority. in addition, there are still men who don't want terribly sexually experienced women as wives, so somehow she should suppress her sexuality until he gets her and then she should become a porn star. But women need to explore what they like to be sexual.
> 
> ...


----------



## heartsbeating (May 2, 2011)

MEM11363 said:


> Yes.
> 
> I have chosen to focus on one theme. Honesty. I can accept a lack of sexual passion - whether or not it's temporary.
> 
> ...


You rock... have I mentioned this lately?


----------



## lifeistooshort (Mar 17, 2013)

heartsbeating said:


> You rock... have I mentioned this lately?


Yes! One of the most thoughtful posters on tam.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## ocotillo (Oct 17, 2011)

norajane said:


> Absolutely!
> 
> Though there are LD men out there, so maybe they can relate?


Maybe. Sometimes I wonder if it ultimately comes down to the risks vs. benefits of sex.

Asking me if I would continue to give my wife all the oral she wants anytime she wants even if I got no sexual reward out of it myself is not so very different than asking me why I scratch the family cat at the base of her tail anytime she wants when the only reward I get out of it is the obvious physical pleasure the animal experiences. 

This is another area where I think a lot of men allow themselves to be needlessly hurt by not understanding that sex may be on a much higher pedestal in their partner's mind.


----------



## UMP (Dec 23, 2014)

Big Dude said:


> MEM, how do you reconcile this pyramid with the oft mentioned tactic of destabilizing the marriage to address sexual mismatch problems?
> 
> I'd bet a year's salary that my wife feels that 1 and 2 are met in almost storybook fashion in our marriage. And yet I saw her taking number 3 seriously only when I began to withdraw 1 and 2.


Take away 1 and 2 and add a dose of fear. I noticed that when I took away some of 1 and 2, i.e. not saying "I love you" every 5 minutes it was not very productive on it's own. However, if you combine this with the fear of actually losing you to someone else it becomes more useful.

My wife loves socializing but I hate it. If I take away 1 and 2 and stay home and never go out, she just gets pissed. However, when I combine a bit less of 1 and 2 along with a trip to my wifes 30 year high school reunion being the life of the party, with girls paying lots of attention to me, gay guys wanting to take a picture with me (true story). THEN, she wants to rip your clothes off.

I cannot tell you how much of an influence it has on my wife when we go out and OTHER women look and talk to me. It's almost as if my wife needs validation from other women for her to be able to value me sexually. I think her mind tells her two things.
1. If I don't sex him up, someone else will.
2. All these hot women want my husband so he must be valuable.

Your wife might be living with the most attractive man in the world. If no one else see's this man to give her regular mental feedback that indeed you ARE the most attractive man in the world, it means practically nothing.


----------



## Anon Pink (Jan 17, 2013)

norajane said:


> They might have the _desire _to meet their partner's needs, but have little desire for sex. So if they do it just to meet their partner's needs, you're back to duty sex. And no, I can't imagine any LD partner cheerfully wanting to give duty sex _constantly_. That will send their LD into hiding and it will turn into active loathing over time. I cannot stress that enough. Someone who has sex when they themselves aren't into it, to just to please their partner, over time, will come to loathe sex and their partner.
> 
> And if this is intended for both genders, how many MEN would actually give duty sex to their HD wives? Give her all the oral she wants while their penis remains uninterested and unstirred? Would they it cheerfully do that 3-4 times a week if their penis never stirred and they never had orgasms? How long would that continue cheerfully?
> 
> There are some people with low drives married to high drives, and there are some people with relationships that need work or are not compatible. Some couples have both problems.



:iagree:


NJ, this is just brilliant!


----------



## Anon Pink (Jan 17, 2013)

lifeistooshort said:


> I can't speak for guys but one of the reasons women do this is because women are raised to consider other things, like what kind of provider he'll be. A woman who went home to her family and told them a rich guy wanted her but she wasn't attracted to him would catch hvll. A guy, otoh, is encouraged to pursue women he's attracted to.
> 
> Everyone who buys into the idea that men should provide above and beyond women buys into this, as it's this very mentality that perpetuates it. If a woman is to depend on a man to provide whether she's attracted to him will be a low priority. in addition, there are still men who don't want terribly sexually experienced women as wives, so somehow she should suppress her sexuality until he gets her and then she should become a porn star. But women need to explore what they like to be sexual.
> 
> ...


This is excellent Life!

Case in point, my D25 living with a guy who treats her very well and they seem to be crazy about each other, but while she is in grad school getting her PhD, he has yet to get his bachelors. The disparity in their income potential is great. I am doing my best to subtly get her interested in meeting other men, men who are more likely to match and or exceed her income potential, men who will be able to support her when she has children. I don't think mothers of sons ever worry about their future DIL being able to financially support their sons.


----------



## ocotillo (Oct 17, 2011)

lifeistooshort said:


> A guy, otoh, is encouraged to pursue women he's attracted to.


I can think of contexts where that's true, but I can think of a lot of others where it's not. 

From _Romeo and Juliette_ to _Sabrina_; From Archduke Ferdinand and Sophie Chotek to Edward VIII and Wallis Simpson; From interreligious marriages to interracial marriages, the concept of forbidden relationships is hardly alien to men.


----------



## Anon Pink (Jan 17, 2013)

ocotillo said:


> I can think of contexts where that's true, but I can think of a lot of others where it's not.
> 
> From _Romeo and Juliette_ to _Sabrina_; From Archduke Ferdinand and Sophie Chotek to Edward VIII and Wallis Simpson; From interreligious marriages to interracial marriages, the concept of forbidden relationships is hardly alien to men.


I think you just proved her point. While on the surface those men were encouraged to follow the expected path to appropriate marriages, the very fact that their union is/was legend serves as proof enough that a man following his attractions and propriety be damned is manly and admirable. Except Edward because nobody liked Wallace.


----------



## ocotillo (Oct 17, 2011)

Anon Pink said:


> ...I am doing my best to subtly get her interested in meeting other men, men who are more likely to match and or exceed her income potential...





lifeistooshort said:


> Everyone who buys into the idea that men should provide above and beyond women buys into this, as it's this very mentality that perpetuates it.


----------



## Anon Pink (Jan 17, 2013)

ocotillo said:


>


I know I know I know.... But I defy any parent of a daughter to be okay with the likelihood that their daughter will be the primary income earner thus effectively excluding any possibility that she will be able to stay at home to take care of her children? Particularly given the fact that this daughter has always maintained she intended to work only part time once she became a mother.

I don't know what the answer is but it is painful watching this relationship knowing she will always be supporting him.


----------



## ocotillo (Oct 17, 2011)

Anon Pink said:


> I think you just proved her point. While on the surface those men were encouraged to follow the expected path to appropriate marriages, the very fact that their union is/was legend serves as proof enough that a man following his attractions and propriety be damned is manly and admirable. Except Edward because nobody liked Wallace.


Are men more respected for morganatic marriages _after the fact_ than woman are? Probably so.

My late FIL was disinherited because of the woman he married. His family owned a huge dairy farm on a gazillion acres of land. Her family was penniless and struggling. While everybody that knew him respects that now, he had absolutely no way of knowing how things would turn out the day he told his father to go to hell.


----------



## techmom (Oct 22, 2012)

Anon Pink said:


> I know I know I know.... *But I defy any parent of a daughter to be okay with the likelihood that their daughter will be the primary income earner thus effectively excluding any possibility that she will be able to stay at home to take care of her children?* Particularly given the fact that this daughter has always maintained she intended to work only part time once she became a mother.
> 
> I don't know what the answer is but it is painful watching this relationship knowing she will always be supporting him.


I would like to see the responses to this post, especially the bolder part. Many people, especially men, would want their daughter to marry someone who would care for them financially. Despite the men who complain that their wife doesn't want them sexually as much as financially, they would not want their little girl to go for the sexy broke guy who spins her crank. They would want her to marry the respectable professional guy. Who is decent and non threatening, because we don't want our little girl to be with the alpha male dude. Too threatening for our tastes.

So she picks the safe beta guy to marry and bring home to mom and dad. She may not be attracted to him, but he checks off everything else on the list and she figures she will learn to love him "that way" eventually. This is true for most first marriages where the couple in question is young.


----------



## Anon Pink (Jan 17, 2013)

ocotillo said:


> Are men more respected for morganatic marriages _after the fact_ than woman are? Probably so.
> 
> My late FIL was disinherited because of the woman he married. His family owned a huge dairy farm on a gazillion acres of land. Her family was penniless and struggling. While everybody that knew him respects that now, he had absolutely no way of knowing how things would turn out the day he told his father to go to hell.


Every culture loves a love story. The trouble we we can tell if it is a love story or a tragedy until after the fact. And yes, men are more respected for telling their fathers to go to hell than women are. But that's a whole different thread don't you think?


----------



## ocotillo (Oct 17, 2011)

Anon Pink said:


> And yes, men are more respected for telling their fathers to go to hell than women are. But that's a whole different thread don't you think?


Well yeah, but the point of the story is that the threat of being disinherited and disowned is not "Encouragement" and it would take a lot more imagination than I have to ever view it as encouragement.

So the assertion that, "A guy, otoh, is encouraged to pursue women he's attracted to" is not entirely true. ---Not when the social/economic gap gets beyond a certain point.


----------



## Anon Pink (Jan 17, 2013)

ocotillo said:


> Well yeah, but the point of the story is that the threat of being disinherited and disowned is not "Encouragement" and it would take a lot more imagination than I have to ever view it as encouragement.
> 
> So the assertion that, "A guy, otoh, is encouraged to pursue women he's attracted to" is not entirely true. ---Not when the social/economic gap gets beyond a certain point.


Oh man Octillo, we could go far off topic with this ...we better be careful.

Literature is rich with men flipping the bird and carrying on with whomever while painting him a virile light. Literature is what informs our common culture. While we can both site famous characters in literature, take Elizabeth Bennet with Mr Darcy and her sister Lydia with Mr Wickham for example (Pride and Prejudice) that illustrates both the benefits of a woman making a good decision and the risks of a woman making a bad decision, I think we can agree that there is much more literature to support my underlined part than disproves it.


----------



## ocotillo (Oct 17, 2011)

Anon Pink said:


> ...take Elizabeth Bennet with Mr Darcy and her sister Lydia with Mr Wickham for example (Pride and Prejudice) that illustrates both the benefits of a woman making a good decision and the risks of a woman making a bad decision,


I don't disagree with the underlined part above even a little bit.  

My only disagreement was with the notion that being male = freedom from any and all social pressure in who you marry. There's lots of interpretations for Elizabeth's double standard _vis-à-vis_ Wickham and Charlotte, but it's always struck me as a tiny little twinge of sympathy for anyone stuck in the military during the Napoleonic Wars.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

I sort of worked this in reverse while dating. 

1. There had to be an acceptable level of physical attraction
2. I did a financial fitness assessment - this wasn't about a prospective partners earning potential (which wasn't a priority for me). It WAS about their ability/desire to live within their means

Living beyond your means meant immediate elimination.






Anon Pink said:


> Oh man Octillo, we could go far off topic with this ...we better be careful.
> 
> Literature is rich with men flipping the bird and carrying on with whomever while painting him a virile light. Literature is what informs our common culture. While we can both site famous characters in literature, take Elizabeth Bennet with Mr Darcy and her sister Lydia with Mr Wickham for example (Pride and Prejudice) that illustrates both the benefits of a woman making a good decision and the risks of a woman making a bad decision, I think we can agree that there is much more literature to support my underlined part than disproves it.


----------



## Fozzy (Jul 20, 2013)

techmom said:


> I would like to see the responses to this post, especially the bolder part. Many people, especially men, would want their daughter to marry someone who would care for them financially. Despite the men who complain that their wife doesn't want them sexually as much as financially, they would not want their little girl to go for the sexy broke guy who spins her crank. They would want her to marry the respectable professional guy. Who is decent and non threatening, because we don't want our little girl to be with the alpha male dude. Too threatening for our tastes.
> 
> So she picks the safe beta guy to marry and bring home to mom and dad. She may not be attracted to him, but he checks off everything else on the list and she figures she will learn to love him "that way" eventually. This is true for most first marriages where the couple in question is young.


Ok, I'll bite. Father of three daughters.

I don't mind at all if they're the primary breadwinners who marry the guys that turn their crank. Why? Because SHE MARRIED A GUY WHO TURNS HER CRANK for starters. Also? As the primary breadwinner, SHE won't be the one left out in the cold if it does fall apart.

Win/Win, imo.

ETA--my focus is wanting my daughters to be happy and secure. The guy who turns their crank makes them happy. Her status as the breadwinner makes her safe.

Marrying the "safe" guy that she's really not attracted to: a) means she won't be as happy romantically or sexually and b) leaves her ultimately more vulnerable financially when it DOES fall apart because neither she nor her husband will be likely to endure a passionless marriage for long.


----------



## Tall Average Guy (Jul 26, 2011)

Fozzy said:


> As the primary breadwinner, SHE won't be the one left out in the cold if it does fall apart.


For my two daughters (and my son) I don't care who is the primary bread-winner. I do care that all three can support themselves if needed.


----------



## ocotillo (Oct 17, 2011)

Fozzy said:


> Ok, I'll bite. Father of three daughters.


Father of three daughters too. --Didn't pay for their insanely expensive educations so they would need a man to support them.


----------



## Anon Pink (Jan 17, 2013)

Fozzy said:


> Ok, I'll bite. Father of three daughters.
> 
> I don't mind at all if they're the primary breadwinners who marry the guys that turn their crank. Why? Because SHE MARRIED A GUY WHO TURNS HER CRANK for starters. Also? As the primary breadwinner, SHE won't be the one left out in the cold if it does fall apart.
> 
> ...



This is exactly what I need to keep telling myself, back off and let my daughter make her own decisions! Thanks Fozzy!


----------



## SimplyAmorous (Nov 25, 2009)

> *MEM11363 said*
> So - where sex is concerned, and in ascending order:
> 
> *1. Commitment (respect for vows)
> ...










... It's kinda a no brainer many women care about this order... I know it means EVERYTHING to me personally...yes.. I NEED the *1* & *2* on both these lists before I can engage in *#3*....these are my comfort, knowing I am cherished, wanted, *our bonding is "understood"*.....it's emotional as well as physical.. it all longs for an "after glow"...... I guess I need A LOT in leading up to the sexual ! 

Even if I was horny as hell... something very meaningful would be missing....it would leave me empty afterwards, reaching for more..... If married & something is amiss, we're not getting along, distance between us... this has been our experience *>> *better to have a knock down drag out FIGHT 1st...then make up sex! That works ! 

Here is the interesting part.... My Husband is the same as me.. he wouldn't feel comfortable just banging without the *1* & *2* also...due to his being this way...I can't say I have ever felt those missing with him in all our years... this has kept me from resentment or feeling distant from him..

You mentioned the watching of movies together in *#2*....this has always meant a great deal to me....some guys just do that while dating..then it dries up... it's been a steady part of our experience over the years.. .(He even watches the Bachelor with me)...nothing like laying in bed together all cuddled up getting caught in a good drama ,Suspense, comedy, Thriller (hiding behind he covers & screaming)... Romance, even some porn !...it doesn't matter..







...



SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> *I'd like to point out that the emotional connection with a girlfriend or Mother is much different than the one you crave with your husband. Getting the kind of romantic emotional connection with someone else would be a EA. It's not just talking.*


 :iagree: My gf's nor my Mother could come close to the level of emotional connection we're meant to share together... it's just not the same.. at least not for me.. I really don't have a desire to get that close to any woman. 



UMP said:


> Maybe the problem is that women want 1,2,3 in that order and men want 3,2,1 in that order.
> 
> The guy puts his foot down and wants 3 but because he is not getting 3 he is unable and cannot produce 1 and 2.
> 
> ...


 I think it's a shame if anyone feels they have to *trod through *any of these. I think they are all ENJOYABLE and ALL needed.. 




> *MEM11363 said*:* 1. There had to be an acceptable level of physical attraction
> 2. I did a financial fitness assessment - this wasn't about a prospective partners earning potential (which wasn't a priority for me). It WAS about their ability/desire to live within their means
> 
> Living beyond your means meant immediate elimination.*


 These 2 things are important on my list too.. and his...

Financially speaking.. My H wants/ prefers to be the primary Breadwinner...we've talked about this, for him, it is his purpose as a man...to be the Provider for his family...that is just how he was raised and how he feels.. 

We've been able to afford the level of lifestyle we both enjoy...and that's good enough for us.....He's always made me feel as if what I bring to our family is just as important....which really.. HE upholds us ALL.... but love his spin on it anyway!..


----------



## SimplyAmorous (Nov 25, 2009)

2ntnuf said:


> *Responsive desire* *means there is little to no natural sexual attraction*.


 Could responsive also mean "REACTIVE"? .... one of the 10 libido types spoken of in When Your Sex Drives Don't Match: Discover Your Libido Types to Create a Mutually Satisfying Sex Life  is called "*Reactive*".. explained like this in the book...



> *10*. *Reactive*- my sexual satisfaction only comes from pleasing my partner. Sex has several meanings..depending on which subtype you fall under....it can mean expressing love & commitment & making the relationship run more smoothly so our partners are sexually content...while for others pleasing your partner is AS MUCH for your own arousal & sexual enjoyment as it is for hers/his. For all Reactive Lovers > your partners satisfaction can also empower you & increase feelings of sexual competency.










.... Identifying your Libido Type


----------



## lifeistooshort (Mar 17, 2013)

ocotillo said:


> Are men more respected for morganatic marriages _after the fact_ than woman are? Probably so.
> 
> My late FIL was disinherited because of the woman he married. His family owned a huge dairy farm on a gazillion acres of land. Her family was penniless and struggling. While everybody that knew him respects that now, he had absolutely no way of knowing how things would turn out the day he told his father to go to hell.


There have certainly been men who have been expected to marry a certain "class" of woman, but mainly wealthy men from wealthy families where nobility and social standing was involved. These are the problems of the rich, particularly rich nobility, who tend to have a different set of standards from the rest of us. It's also the reason that royals tended to be inbred, because there weren't that many rich, socially acceptable people available that weren't related.

If you look at average people like the rest of us mortals you find that in general men have more leeway to choose a partner based on looks and attraction. Women traditionally had little to no power to take care of themselves so they HAD to consider a guy's providing power. Fat lot of good it would be to have a guy you wanted to bang if you and your kids starved because he was a bum and you, as a woman, had no financial options.
Hubby could cheat, beat you up, do whatever he wanted because you couldn't go anywhere. I suspect there are still men unhappy with the fact that this is no longer the case.

That's why as women are able to take care of themselves a guy's ability to provide a comfortable life will no longer be a top priority and she is free to consider other things. Survival will always be our top instinct, so if I have to consider where my kids' next meal is coming from I'm not worried about sex. I think everyone should have some kind of standard.....I don't require my husband make more than me (he doesn't) but I do require him to not be a bum, which he's not.

I counsel my sons to get an education and make something of themselves so they'll be a good partner, but I also counsel them to find a woman who will make a good partner for them. That means a woman who won't be completely dependent on them. That doesn't mean they won't work out their own arrangements, especially as they have young kids, but both partners should have some earning potential. That's my humble belief.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

jorgegene said:


> Me thinks the pyramid works with responsive, giving spouses (wives).
> 
> With spouses that are resistive and self centered, all bets are off.
> : : : :
> However, again, that is assuming a healthy responsive spouse, otherwise the pyramid collapses.



People with healthy responsive spouses don't end up on TAM.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

2ntnuf said:


> Responsive desire means there is little to no natural sexual attraction.



That, and that any sex that may or may not happen could well have a sinister reason for happening or not happening.

Think "eat your broccoli and I'll buy you an iPod".


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

The stuff below - is why we've had maybe 10 quickies in our marriage. 

M2 is fine with quickies. If we are short on time, I generally prefer to wait until tomorrow. I like to have at least an hour. 




SimplyAmorous said:


> ... It's kinda a no brainer many women care about this order... I know it means EVERYTHING to me personally...yes.. I NEED the *1* & *2* on both these lists before I can engage in *#3*....these are my comfort, knowing I am cherished, wanted, *our bonding is "understood"*.....it's emotional as well as physical.. it all longs for an "after glow"...... I guess I need A LOT in leading up to the sexual !
> 
> Even if I was horny as hell... something very meaningful would be missing....it would leave me empty afterwards, reaching for more..... If married & something is amiss, we're not getting along, distance between us... this has been our experience *>> *better to have a knock down drag out FIGHT 1st...then make up sex! That works !
> 
> ...


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

SA,
It's not spin. You are an equal partner in the marriage. 





SimplyAmorous said:


> ... It's kinda a no brainer many women care about this order... I know it means EVERYTHING to me personally...yes.. I NEED the *1* & *2* on both these lists before I can engage in *#3*....these are my comfort, knowing I am cherished, wanted, *our bonding is "understood"*.....it's emotional as well as physical.. it all longs for an "after glow"...... I guess I need A LOT in leading up to the sexual !
> 
> Even if I was horny as hell... something very meaningful would be missing....it would leave me empty afterwards, reaching for more..... If married & something is amiss, we're not getting along, distance between us... this has been our experience *>> *better to have a knock down drag out FIGHT 1st...then make up sex! That works !
> 
> ...


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

john117 said:


> That, and that any sex that may or may not happen could well have a sinister reason for happening or not happening.
> 
> Think "eat your broccoli and I'll buy you an iPod".


Only if something happened that makes her believe this is consistently the reason. It could be something you did or something from before you. 

Just so they aren't brussels sprouts. yuk


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

So now I think it's time to interject a couple of observations that - tie back to a phrase that JLD uses:

When a man is meeting his wife's deepest emotional needs she WANTS to have sex with him. 

In the interest of clarity I'm going to letter grade my performance in two areas:
1. Endorphins: Creating a feeling a well being, safety and comfort
2. Dopamine: Excitement, intense happiness

(1) A
(2) C-

(1) is why M2 cheerfully initiates a couple times and seems to get something emotionally satisfying from the experience. 

(2) is why M2 isn't getting aroused and often seems unable or uninterested in orgasming (with me) 

I have lots of excuses as to why I'm doing a shlt job on (2). But that's what they are - excuses. 

So - in the interest of actually being a good romantic partner - I'm going to leave my comfort zone and try to find a way to hit M2's increasingly elusive dopamine triggers. 

Situation reversed, I know M2 would do that for me......


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Y'all are overthinking it to Manhattan Project levels.

Some people like sex and some don't. Even worse, those who don't like it generally have preconceived notions of why they don't, with a cropping of misconceptions handy to justify their position.

Y'all are establishing a pretty formal set of mental, emotional, and chemical conditions that have to be met to aerospace or pharma standards for sex to occur. All because the cake has been cut. 

Back in my village in backwater Europe meanwhile people were / are screwing like bunnies without the requisite deep emotional needs or hormonal infusions.


----------



## SimplyAmorous (Nov 25, 2009)

> *MEM11363 said*: So now I think it's time to interject a couple of observations that - tie back to a phrase that JLD uses:
> 
> When a man is meeting his wife's deepest emotional needs she WANTS to have sex with him.
> 
> ...


 and could be...you are not doing a sh** job at all.. it's just where she IS in life and wouldn't matter if you were Brad Pitt or Ryan Gosling.. I think what john117 says is true too..."Some people like sex and some don't. Even worse, those who don't like it generally have preconceived notions of why they don't, with a cropping of misconceptions handy to justify their position."

I can't remember, did M2 go through full blown menopause yet (I know you 2 are a similar age to us) or is she still in that PERI phase ? I noticed you said "Prior to menopause M2 definitely thought about sex on a regular basis - for herself. " what did that mean.. she didn't come to you? 

Surely all Husbands have a story to the *before Peri*...*During Peri* ...*and AFTER Menopause* in regards to their wives & levels of passion/ interest, probably even unrelated to the man as much as her Crazy hormones at the time.

Too scientific perhaps but tried to find a link...us women are so complicated in comparison to men!!!

 Neurobiology of Sexual Response in Men and Women



> *The Role of Hormones in Women’s Sexual Response*
> 
> The role of gonadal hormones in human female sexual response is less clear. In most female primates, ovarian hormones influence but do not control sexual behavior, which may be expressed even when gonadal hormones are minimal. In women, attempts to correlate desire, arousability, and arousal with different phases of the menstrual cycle, during which different hormones dominate, have met with only partial success. In women, both estrogens and androgens may work together to enhance sexual arousal and response.11-13 For example, the administration of estrogen plus small amounts of testosterone to menopausal women provides greater improvement of psychological symptoms (eg, lack of concentration, depression, and fatigue) and sexual dysfunction (eg, impairment of libido, sexual arousal and ability to have an orgasm) than estrogen alone.11,14 However, variability in sexual interest in women, probably even more than in men, is likely to be contextual and partner-based, and relatively independent of biological control systems.
> 
> ...















> *MEM11363 said*: *The stuff below - is why we've had maybe 10 quickies in our marriage.
> 
> M2 is fine with quickies. If we are short on time, I generally prefer to wait until tomorrow. I like to have at least an hour. *


 When I posted, I was thinking outside of marriage too.. which 1 & 2 is of vital importance to me.. I don't like being left & forgotten, while a man moves on...it's not because I wouldn't feel it, being attracted & horny is ALL TOO NATURAL...but I know what I need...for my own well being....Emotional strings & exclusivity... 

Once THAT has been established , however....as far as quickies ... I wish he'd given me a TON more of those when I was "insane drive".. he just wasn't able!! ..... Nothing wrong with them at all !... Heavenly!.. I also wish I had given him one every darn morning in his younger yrs...when he was higher drive... Water under the bridge now .....it bothers ME more than it ever bothered him..I should be thankful here. 

So long as things are flowing peacefully between a couple, getting caught up in the physical should just be like a "magnet and steel" response.. it would be nice if it always worked this way.. I know, I know.. Our hormonal high has such an effect on us.. I think it can only be aroused with as much is available to us at any given time. 

It's great to make it last though - Yes! Having done a thread about this topic...IF I couldn't get my orgasm, he would wait!!!... I wouldn't do that.. I'd still say "Give it to me!!" 



MEM11363 said:


> SA,
> *It's not spin. You are an equal partner in the marriage.*


I may be an equal contributing partner in OTHER ways , ways that save him a tremendous amount of time, and make his life easier, carefree.. no doubt.. I am an amazing organizer & things run very smoothly for our larger family, we don't miss a beat... 

But the sorry truth is...none of this really matters with modern thinking ....I read these posts near daily here....that BOTH should be contributing financially or it's a bum deal for the husband carrying the financial load...this is HIM =







...he is being gypped/ taken advantage of... could have married a career woman so if something happens, she can take care of him... while the wife is being foolish..putting all her eggs in 1 basket, often assumed she probably married him for his money/ security not because she was "head over heels".

At least I can say...I made more than my H when we married, so it's not always true...

Couldn't help but notice your post #102 "We earned the same income when we met. M2 was however determined to be a SAHM. So guys who couldn't make that happen were not in her consideration set"... .. we have a similar beginning then...( he KNEW how badly I wanted a family)... though I never met any Doctors.. had a real hottie who wanted to get to know me better/ more ALPHA.. but I told myself none would be as good for me as my Husband.. so I dished him off to a GF & they went to the Prom together.. 

I bring in a measly 5% of our income.. he would never allow me to look down on myself ...having always felt his welcoming support in this way.. there is a rising appreciation for him that lives inside of me..and this flows back *to us*...

It's all in that "Interdependent" spirit of loving I guess .


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

MEM11363 said:


> So now I think it's time to interject a couple of observations that - tie back to a phrase that JLD uses:
> 
> When a man is meeting his wife's deepest emotional needs she WANTS to have sex with him.
> 
> ...


The scary part is that 2 has to have a naturally occurring baseline. I'm suggesting she did, but how high was it? You can't create that, only enhance it. You can do all things correctly and in one woman, they will be met with more dopamine than another woman. Of course, that's if all biological functions are in the normal range, and there has been no traumatic events in their lives. Those are always going to be variables.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

SA,
M2 is 52 - full blown menopause. 

Before menopause - mid cycle - M2 would feel desire and initiate. 

And her responsive desire was STRONG. 

Some of where we are is just age and lack of hormones. 

And some is caused by the fact that we almost never fight anymore. Even though a high conflict marriage can be tiresome, the combat part of the equation produced a lot of dopamine. 

Hell - M2 would routinely say: I like having a good blowout - it's cathartic.....

SA - you need to forgive yourself for the lack of clear sexual communication earlier in your mariage. There was nothing unkind about your behavior - you didn't know what you didn't know. 

As for the money thing - M2 had a complex about some of the career women I worked with. Would often say: You should have married..... hot and successful. 

My response: Im already married to someone who's hot and successful.






SimplyAmorous said:


> and could be...you are not doing a sh** job at all.. it's just where she IS in life and wouldn't matter if you were Brad Pitt or Ryan Gosling.. I think what john117 says is true too..."Some people like sex and some don't. Even worse, those who don't like it generally have preconceived notions of why they don't, with a cropping of misconceptions handy to justify their position."
> 
> I can't remember, did M2 go through full blown menopause yet (I know you 2 are a similar age to us) or is she still in that PERI phase ? I noticed you said "Prior to menopause M2 definitely thought about sex on a regular basis - for herself. " what did that mean.. she didn't come to you?
> 
> ...


----------



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

john117 said:


> People with healthy responsive spouses don't end up on TAM.


Not necessarily true. I first joined TAM because I wanted to see how we could improve our marriage. It doesn't mean that my starting point was that of being a "hot mess". I believe others are also on TAM not because they're dealing with a specific trauma but simply want to find a place where they can discuss some marital issues but largely try to build on something that is already solid.


----------



## ocotillo (Oct 17, 2011)

lifeistooshort said:


> There have certainly been men who have been expected to marry a certain "class" of woman but mainly wealthy men from wealthy families where nobility and social standing was involved. These are the problems of the rich, particularly rich nobility, who tend to have a different set of standards from the rest of us.


An immigrant South Dakota dairy farmer with $hit on his boots is hardly a blue blooded aristocrat.  Sure the land and livestock had a substantial monetary value after a generation and a half of hard work, but liquid assets on a farm are almost always scarce. 

My own experience was not as bad, but still similar. My father co-owned a ranch in northern AZ. and as his eldest son, I was not only expected to marry a nice Jewish girl, I was expected to marry someone with an interest in the family business. My choice (A conservative Christian Air Force brat) permanently alienated my parents and we did not speak for many years afterwards.

So I can't help a little bit of amusement here (And I mean that in a genuinely friendly way...) especially after you prefaced your original comment by saying that you can't speak for guys.  

Yesterday, the subject of Britain in the Regency period came up. (Mostly as it has been portrayed in literature.) The fact that marriage at the time was the principal means of preventing assets accumulated in one generation from being dispersed and lost in the next was not a phenomenon confined to the landed gentry. It affected the children of every business owner from shoemakers to grain chandlers and boys as well as girls had the threat of falling into a lower economic class (Which was a big fall...) held over their heads, albeit in different ways. 



lifeistooshort said:


> If you look at average people like the rest of us mortals you find that in general men have more leeway to choose a partner based on looks and attraction. Women traditionally had little to no power to take care of themselves so they HAD to consider a guy's providing power.


I'm not trying to be a butt-head here, but this does beg the question: How does a constraint imposed on the marriage choices of one gender *not* inversely affect the other? 

In other words, if economic disparity forces women to choose good providers over looks and attraction, then doesn't the ability of lesser providers to choose based on looks and attraction shrink in exactly the same proportion? I'm not sure how anything else is mathematically possible. :scratchhead: 

In the balance of your comments, I think you're talking about a closely related, but separate issue more applicable to what happens after the marriage has taken place. In times past, a woman surrendered what little legal identity she had and it was subsumed under her husband's name. (Coverture) So yeah, a woman was in many ways, at her husband's mercy and had the threat of economic misery held over her head pretty much her entire life. 

Is that the case today though? I suppose we could argue that this happens on a much smaller scale when a woman surrenders her economic potential to be a stay at home mom and it's pretty low if a man does not appreciate that sacrifice. However I'd argue that this is entirely optional today. In the 35 and under demographic, women are earning slightly more than men and that is a milestone that made the cover of Time magazine a couple of years ago, so I think the idea that a woman _needs_ a man to support her has outlived the actual reality.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Plan 9 from OS said:


> Not necessarily true. I first joined TAM because I wanted to see how we could improve our marriage. It doesn't mean that my starting point was that of being a "hot mess". I believe others are also on TAM not because they're dealing with a specific trauma but simply want to find a place where they can discuss some marital issues but largely try to build on something that is already solid.



The build part yes, but not very many of them compared to the trauma part....


----------



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

john117 said:


> The build part yes, but not very many of them compared to the trauma part....


I won't disagree. I know that I'm a minority on here compared to others. But I still have issues in my marriage that I like to work on - even though some may think my issues are small potatoes.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

John,
The main destructive pattern of behavior on TAM is caused by displaced anger. 

I see it frequently. 

A man comes to TAM and is very angry at his wife about X. For his own reasons he is unwilling to divorce. 

Another man comes and posts a substantially similar story. 

This triggers the first man and his advice is to do what he wants to do but is not willing/able to in his own life: get divorced










john117 said:


> The build part yes, but not very many of them compared to the trauma part....


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Plan9,
And that's exactly why folks like you are so helpful to others on TAM. 

You've got some challenges which you are constructively working through. You're pro marriage AND pro personal responsibility. 

And - this last bit is possibly the most important of all. You're secure. So TAM is a place where your focus is on learning and sharing/teaching. It's not a competition. 





Plan 9 from OS said:


> I won't disagree. I know that I'm a minority on here compared to others. But I still have issues in my marriage that I like to work on - even though some may think my issues are small potatoes.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

MEM11363 said:


> John,
> The main destructive pattern of behavior on TAM is caused by displaced anger.
> 
> I see it frequently.
> ...



I see it all the time... But in reality it's not anger. It's the realization that others have the same issues with small - in the grand scheme of things - differences. And they recommend drastic solutions because they feel they know better. Not because inside they wish they'd do it too.

Anger and frustration gets people to TAM. Then they open their eyes and see how good - or bad - they have it. Then they can decide if the grass is greener on the other side.

In retrospect our biggest failure is that by reading case study after case study we are preconditioned to lump them all into one big blob. That's not how it should be. We also don't spend enough time finding differences between cases. We are too quick to proclaim "180" or "wash more dishes" or "divorce the beach/bozo". We don't root cause issues. We just want solutions.

I don't feel anyone sees TAM as competition. For every success story there's 10, 20, or more epic failures whose actors go away never to return with an update. The successful ones often think they have the ticket to the magic ride to a successful marriage. Wish it was so. Just like in science or engineering, tho, failures are far better teachers than successes.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

Desperation with no clue what to do is my opinion of what brings most to TAM. Anger overshadows issues which may or may not be rectified to the satisfaction of each individual situation. 

Similarity breeds contempt. There are basic needs which vary in intensity from person to person. Those can be addressed and fine tuned to the individuals on their own away from TAM. 

There are foundations which must be there first and are overlooked in mate selection due to chemical fog or misplaced priorities. 

There are individuals who are damaged or broken from life experiences beyond what they experienced in the marriage.

There are those who see that the goal is not likely to be accomplished and recommend divorce based on their own unique experiences. 

There are those who consider reconciliation to be the only path even when the likelihood of reaching goals are unrealistic. Those idealistic individuals have had to change who they are and how they perceive getting needs met to be able to make it. It is not for the faint hearted. 

So, some answers are based in logical progression and others in emotional response. I've swung wildly in both directions. It's tough to feel such deep love and not want to feel it again. It's nice, even when it's really not as good as it could be. We only know it's way better than what we had before. That's where denial comes into play. 

It's really tough to be logical in the beginning. It doesn't make sense in a relationship. Emotion is what feels good, not logic. 

Well, it's just my opinion.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

I was lucky. 

Married someone I'm very compatible with. And I have a set of hardwired response patterns that are very helpful in a marriage. 

Even so, there was a lot of stuff I knew nothing about prior to TAM. Stuff that I gradually picked up here that has been hugely helpful to me and M2. 






2ntnuf said:


> Desperation with no clue what to do is my opinion of what brings most to TAM. Anger overshadows issues which may or may not be rectified to the satisfaction of each individual situation.
> 
> Similarity breeds contempt. There are basic needs which vary in intensity from person to person. Those can be addressed and fine tuned to the individuals on their own away from TAM.
> 
> ...


----------



## lifeistooshort (Mar 17, 2013)

ocotillo said:


> An immigrant South Dakota dairy farmer with $hit on his boots is hardly a blue blooded aristocrat.  Sure the land and livestock had a substantial monetary value after a generation and a half of hard work, but liquid assets on a farm are almost always scarce.
> 
> My own experience was not as bad, but still similar. My father co-owned a ranch in northern AZ. and as his eldest son, I was not only expected to marry a nice Jewish girl, I was expected to marry someone with an interest in the family business. My choice (A conservative Christian Air Force brat) permanently alienated my parents and we did not speak for many years afterwards.
> 
> ...


See now you're getting into Jewish culture. I'm Jewish too so I totally get it, many Jews aren't happy if their son or daughter brings home someone who isn't Jewish or who otherwise doesn't conform to a set of standards. My dad would've been thrilled had I brought home a nice Jewish guy but he wasn't that into it so when I didn't he was ok with it. My cousin married an Indian lady, and while my family was fine with it we were a little surprised that her family was ok with it too, most of the Indian people I know (quite a few) are married to other Indian people. They're both doctors though so I think her family was just happy she married someone successful.

Since I'm not a guy I can't speak for you guys, but that doesn't mean our issues don't overlap 

Of course men of lesser means have traditionally had fewer options, that's always been true in the same way that less attractive women had few options. But since the only currency women had was sex they had to leverage it as much as possible. Once married though even men of no means expected to have sex, and it was perfectly legal and acceptable to rape your wife because as a man you were entitled to sex and women had little value beyond this. And let's not forget that even poor women could have plenty of sex appeal, so a broke guy could still get a girl he was attracted to, she just probably wouldn't come from a wealthier family. Poor women had it worst of all because they had no means, their families often saw them as a burden they couldn't wait to marry off, and if they couldn't find a guy to marry them and barely support them they were pretty much screwed. Cinderella fairy tales of a prince marrying a woman with nothing are just that, fairy tales. The few times that happens these days (not necessarily a prince of course but a man of means) most people are screaming gold digger anyway.

This thread is addressing the hierarchy of needs women have in relation to having sex, and my comment stems from the comment that LD people marry people they're not attracted to. I was addressing this from the perspective of a woman since that's the perspective I have, and I'd bet that this is something women do more often. I'm addressing why I think that is. I still feel that as women gain economic power they are freed up to find someone they're attracted to and thus are more likely to continue to want sex with them. At this point in my life I'm doing very well so I was free to look a guy I'm very attracted to, and while he's successful too (I'm not interested in a bum at this point and did want a partner) paying my bills and feeding my kids doesn't have to be my primary motivator in finding a guy. He recently lost his job and if he finds one making a little less that's fine because I have means too. It's good for both of us because he picks up slack at home and we spend a lot of time together, and I'm really attracted to him so we have sex. If I didn't have financial means we'd both be beside ourselves right now as he looks for another job, and possible one that pays less.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

I absolutely believe that female financial empowerment is Enabling more and more women to heavily weight the attraction factor.

Nellie - was the hottest girl I dated. But she was a financial disaster and:
1. I didn't want to constantly worry she would outspend whatever I earned. 
2. I was certain that I could NOT be certain she was primarily into ME - and not primarily into my wallet. 

Financial equality is good for all of us. 




lifeistooshort said:


> See now you're getting into Jewish culture. I'm Jewish too so I totally get it, many Jews aren't happy if their son or daughter brings home someone who isn't Jewish or who otherwise doesn't conform to a set of standards. My dad would've been thrilled had I brought home a nice Jewish guy but he wasn't that into it so when I didn't he was ok with it. My cousin married an Indian lady, and while my family was fine with it we were a little surprised that her family was ok with it too, most of the Indian people I know (quite a few) are married to other Indian people. They're both doctors though so I think her family was just happy she married someone successful.
> 
> Since I'm not a guy I can't speak for you guys, but that doesn't mean our issues don't overlap
> 
> ...


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

Men are in deep trouble. Women are lying to them and baiting them into relationships with their sexuality, just so they can meet some biological need to do what? have children? That's something I don't know. 

I'm guessing your interest in him will decline slowly as you realize he is not the provider any longer, even though you say it doesn't bother you now. I think that something that is a natural need of most women. I tried to avoid too much generalization.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Fozzy said:


> Ok, I'll bite. Father of three daughters.
> 
> I don't mind at all if they're the primary breadwinners who marry the guys that turn their crank. Why? Because SHE MARRIED A GUY WHO TURNS HER CRANK for starters. Also? As the primary breadwinner, SHE won't be the one left out in the cold if it does fall apart.
> 
> Win/Win, imo.


Hear hear!!

The stereotypes are of no real help.

Life is unpredictable; we can plan all we want, but then the wrench comes. Good to be as resourceful and competent we can be. And adaptable. Regardless of gender.

And regardless of education too. Sure PhDs often earn good cash, but often they don't. It is certainly no guarantee of anything, and talent, intelligence, entrepreneurial spirit, or resourcefulness can also play a role.

For me, what is missing in the pyramid is a 4th level: psychological chemistry. Seems to me to be so much more important to be simpatico, to share core values, worldview, principles. At least for the longer haul.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Dunno about kids. All I know is I fulfill the checkbox for "successful non religious nut husband". Attraction? Meh. We spent the day at Macy's shopping and her spandex legging and tight knit sweater outfit caught a few eyes. And she's 55. 

But it's all there is to it. She tried to convince me men over 40 are toast sexually and need medicines to get the plumbing working. Sex at 50? 60? 70? Preposterous.

But she went out of her way to tell me that women on her family enjoy being sexual older and many remarried when husband #1 croaked. Indeed her family has a good number of such cases. But Dr. John was thinking that these were largely marriages of convenience and financial support (a theme indicated by fellow posters in the thread) and not for passion at a late age.

Desire.... That's tough. After I politely declined the last couple times the good Dr. Is planning to try again tomorrow night. Apparently the TIME FOR SEX light has turned on in her status panel (there's your responsive desire......). On a Sunday night with work the next day... Can't help but wonder if I should decline again. Do I feel desire? A little. But not enough to overcome the little voice inside my head.

In the pyramid of needs sex is a checklist item for her, not an integral part of the marriage. Oh well.


----------



## lifeistooshort (Mar 17, 2013)

2ntnuf said:


> Men are in deep trouble. Women are lying to them and baiting them into relationships with their sexuality, just so they can meet some biological need to do what? have children? That's something I don't know.
> 
> I'm guessing your interest in him will decline slowly as you realize he is not the provider any longer, even though you say it doesn't bother you now. I think that something that is a natural need of most women. I tried to avoid too much generalization.


Yet you just made a massive generalization. I already have kids and it's always been clear I'll make more money, since I make a lot more then average most men will make less. And of course I like security, we all do. The difference is that I offer some security rather than simply demand it, which traditionally I wouldn't have been able to do. That's the definition of a partner, you offer each other security and work together.

If this is how you feel I'm genuinely sorry, you've either chosen women of poor character or you have some fundamental issue that makes you a poor partner. Only you know what's going on.

I'm confident that whatever comes our way we can figure it out together. And fyi, his ability to make money has nothing to do with mine, 50 years ago when I would've been stuck in the home he might be in the same boat. The only difference is that it wouldn't have been possible for me to dump him if that's what I wanted to do, and the inability to dump someone has nothing to do with what you think of them. And I wouldn't have been in a position to help financially like I am now. Mens' earning power has always declined as they get past a certain age yet many manage to stay married, with wives that are happy.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

This is where I'd take her face in my hands and say:

You are still beautiful and desirable - if we could figure out how to make the marriage work - I'd sleep with you. 

------
If she has no interest in 'making the marriage work' it's very honest to NOT sleep with her.....




john117 said:


> Dunno about kids. All I know is I fulfill the checkbox for "successful non religious nut husband". Attraction? Meh. We spent the day at Macy's shopping and her spandex legging and tight knit sweater outfit caught a few eyes. And she's 55.
> 
> But it's all there is to it. She tried to convince me men over 40 are toast sexually and need medicines to get the plumbing working. Sex at 50? 60? 70? Preposterous.
> 
> ...


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

lifeistooshort said:


> Yet you just made a massive generalization. I already have kids and it's always been clear I'll make more money, since I make a lot more then average most men will make less. And of course I like security, we all do. The difference is that I offer some security rather than simply demand it, which traditionally I wouldn't have been able to do. That's the definition of a partner, you offer each other security and work together.
> 
> If this is how you feel I'm genuinely sorry, you've either chosen women of poor character or you have some fundamental issue that makes you a poor partner. Only you know what's going on.
> 
> I'm confident that whatever comes our way we can figure it out together. And fyi, his ability to make money has nothing to do with mine, 50 years ago when I would've been stuck in the home he might be in the same boat. The only difference is that it wouldn't have been possible for me to dump him if that's what I wanted to do, and the inability to dump someone has nothing to do with what you think of them. And I wouldn't have been in a position to help financially like I am now. Mens' earning power has always declined as they get past a certain age yet many manage to stay married, with wives that are happy.


I did. Massive. Thank you for explaining.


----------



## lifeistooshort (Mar 17, 2013)

2ntnuf said:


> I did. Massive. Thank you for explaining.



Eh, no hard feelings 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## SimplyAmorous (Nov 25, 2009)

MEM11363 said:


> SA,
> *M2 is 52 - full blown menopause.
> 
> Before menopause - mid cycle - M2 would feel desire and initiate.
> ...


 Yep.. so I hear how it normally goes.. I am 4 yrs behind.. and not at all looking forward to "the change"... would do ANYTHING to hold that back.. if I could keep it away till I was 60, I'd be so [email protected]#.... but it's outta our hands .... I can feel a slow decline in me.. I don't like it... they say our biggest sex organ is our brain.... the mind is still so very willing... ready.. gonna fight to not let that slip... 



> *And some is caused by the fact that we almost never fight anymore. Even though a high conflict marriage can be tiresome, the combat part of the equation produced a lot of dopamine. *
> 
> *Hell - M2 would routinely say: I like having a good blowout - it's cathartic.*....


Yes.. I remember a post you did on a dopamine thread yrs ago.. you mentioned "intense conflict" in your explaining..

I am not sure many would understand me in this.. though you may, beings my H is on the passive side .. Some healthy conflict can stir things UP .... I understand your wife.. I never minded a good FIGHT... and it happens from time to time.. I fought more when my hormones were on fire....that antsyness got the best of me!....a # of times he accused me of fighting just for the make up sex!! Was I ?  












> *SA - you need to forgive yourself for the lack of clear sexual communication earlier in your mariage. There was nothing unkind about your behavior - you didn't know what you didn't know. *


 Oh I have ...it's just part of the story... I see no reason to smooth over it... I will always look upon those years with some regret here.. .... I've looked for quotes on regret & so many say "live with no regrets" and such.. but I tend to view it very differently....

It is GOOD I have regret, it was GOOD he felt my regret.... if my attitude wasn't this way, how would he know I was truly remorseful ?.... he would NOT.. I have shown in tears how strongly I would love to go back there..and BE what I should have been... in this way I have rubbed my own face in my regret... but I'm still here...I surely learned from it.. I will NEVER be the same *because of it*....I must call it what it was...

As with any of us.. and our personal journeys, the mistakes...it was a combination of things.. nothing is ever so black & white. 

This strong feeling of regret is what compels me to speak if /when another may just not be "getting it"... no matter what else is taking precedence, so easily sucking their energies in their early marriages.. to be aware, this can someday turn on their heads... Hopefully their husbands will be as gracious as mine... 

If it's possible to make up for lost years, he would say I have.. 



> *As for the money thing - M2 had a complex about some of the career women I worked with. ** Would often say: You should have married..... hot and successful.
> 
> My response: Im already married to someone who's hot and successful*.


 I understand her complex.. I have compared myself... what can you do... it's honest... Good reply.. Heartbeating already said this.. but *>>*











> *always_alone said:* *For me, what is missing in the pyramid is a 4th level: psychological chemistry. Seems to me to be so much more important to be simpatico, to share core values, worldview, principles. At least for the longer haul.*










..It would be very difficult for any of us to live with someone who looked down upon what is deeply important to us value / principle wise .. wanting to change who we are.. there is no acceptance in that.. just ..more like striving... brick walls.. .and aloneness.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

MEM11363 said:


> If she has no interest in 'making the marriage work' it's very honest to NOT sleep with her.....



Let me put on my best Clark Gable impersonation and deliver the above lines in a deep rumbling voice tonight...

View attachment 32114


Advise well taken MEM... Besides sex on a Sunday has serious connotations for being at work at 830 am on a Monday  I'm good but not THAT good.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

Thought this might help you MEM. It's interesting, if nothing else.

Menopause Matters: Magazine Article - How to boost your sex drive


----------



## Voltaire2013 (Sep 22, 2013)

Ha!
You make me think of a joke I recently made to my wife about our, ahem, quiet years. Though I know much better now due to reading here, a lot of the men's sex in marriage complaints can essentially be boiled down to 'my wife no longer facks, so fack her. (Not realizing the latter led to the former) I'm a nice guy, don't drink, do drugs, home on time, help with household and the kids, wtf?'
I've been there so I get it, and I now understand the power of the negative feedback loop. But it's nice to hear we are not alone. It takes some time for the average Joe to realize change from within leads to change throughout. Not sure how many think of it that way and have the fortitude to follow through, it's much easier to blame. 
its hard to let go of the anger and resentments. But it's liberating. I feel like mind was in a storm for 2 years and now it's over. I'm glad I didn't get a blonde mistress and a corvette, but then again I like brunettes and M3s. 

Cheers,
V(13)



MEM11363 said:


> John,
> The main destructive pattern of behavior on TAM is caused by displaced anger.
> 
> I see it frequently.
> ...


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

John,

I genuinely wish you luck. 

Am I wrong in thinking that J2 is giving you a new signal by telling you about her female relatives who were sexual late in life?

Because those comments seem 180 degrees out of phase with some of her prior statements about older people not wanting / needing / being able to have a reasonably active sex life.....

And that's a good thing - these relatives sound like positive role models.....



john117 said:


> Let me put on my best Clark Gable impersonation and deliver the above lines in a deep rumbling voice tonight...
> 
> View attachment 32114
> 
> ...


----------



## ocotillo (Oct 17, 2011)

lifeistooshort said:


> Since I'm not a guy I can't speak for you guys, but that doesn't mean our issues don't overlap


I completely agree with this.  History is not portrayed very accurately today and both genders have faced considerable pressures to marry for reasons other than attraction. 

Are you familiar with how marriage settlements worked in the Georgian / Regency / Victorian periods? 

Although women couldn't directly own land, a big chunk of a family's liquid assets transferred from parents to children via the bride. Even if your father was just a shop keeper, he would have to put up a marriage settlement, the size of which largely determined your eligibility.

Books and movies today hardly ever portray this the way it actually worked, because it's unromantic not matter which way you look at it. Young men were pressured by their families to marry based on the size of the marriage settlement rather than attraction, which reduced young women to the vehicle for the next generation of economic unions between families. --Not much fun for anybody.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

MEM11363 said:


> Am I wrong in thinking that J2 is giving you a new signal by telling you about her female relatives who were sexual late in life?



The devil is in the details as we know 

J2 was very specific about a number of her female relatives REMARRYING later in life. Not BEING INTIMATE later in life  for men, on the other hand, she was of the opinion that they can't have sex past 40 without being pumped full of Viagra and the like... So in reality it's a bit of wishful thinking and gaslighting... Women don't want sex because their men can't have sex. Needless to say debate is not her strongest subject.

Maybe I should use her grandfather as a role model. The guy had two wives in two cities, legally.


----------



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

MEM11363 said:


> John,
> 
> I genuinely wish you luck.
> 
> ...


IDK about that. When I read John's post, it sounded like she said: if I want to, I can turn my desire back on and replace you. STFU. Wish we could hear from John's W, but that is what I get based on John's perceptions. Even the most clinical person can have a blind spot concerning his/her own personal life so...wh knows?


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

I would gladly give one of my Nikon DSLR's to see J2 try to replace me. She would have little problem attracting men - she's working in a very male profession plus she looks great - and could pull the "me cute furriner" trick while dating, maybe put out some. 

But building a lasting relationship... Doubt it. Not unless the guy is a total mess or major LD himself...


----------



## In Absentia (Aug 21, 2012)

I agree with the pyramid, in principle... in fact, I know I messed up somewhat regarding the order... but as someone said (maybe John) before, you need to have a willing wife/husband for the pyramid to work. In my marriage, there always have been too many collaterals for our relationship to work on the long term. Unfortunately, I found out too late...

I do envy people on TAM with "normal" wives...


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

I'm not sure anyone in this world is "normal" especially if your definition of normal is a bit more than June Cleaver...

As a more than amateur  psychologist I do not buy Maslow's hierarchy of needs - humans are extremely adaptable and that's why we have persevered. The pyramid works in specific cases like organizational situations but not in general.

Most humans take similar steps in their quest for fulfillment but the order of operations is often skewed by priorities. Maslow's view is too simplistic. The order within the pyramid, as well as what is in the pyramid, is not as cast in stone as people think. For a particular slice of the population it may hold true but not as a true representation of everyone.

The safety part is a dead giveaway. Compare the safety aspect of an accountant vs a GenY extreme sports dude ....


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

I am picturing a man trying to learn how to pilot a helicopter without a manual or a flight instructor.

There are folks who I would pay serious money - for them to wear a body camera as they go through life - all except the bedroom. I'm not looking for THAT part of the experience. 






john117 said:


> I would gladly give one of my Nikon DSLR's to see J2 try to replace me. She would have little problem attracting men - she's working in a very male profession plus she looks great - and could pull the "me cute furriner" trick while dating, maybe put out some.
> 
> But building a lasting relationship... Doubt it. Not unless the guy is a total mess or major LD himself...


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

MEM11363 said:


> I am picturing a man trying to learn how to pilot a helicopter without a manual or a flight instructor.
> 
> 
> 
> There are folks who I would pay serious money - for them to wear a body camera as they go through life - all except the bedroom. I'm not looking for THAT part of the experience.



Lolz. You'd be surprised by what people can and will do. Dr. J2 is good about using her looks when needed... When we are on vacation she has a few outfits that are designated "shopping / bargaining / haggling"... Even the most determined West Indies merchant gets, ehem, distracted 

She spent the last couple days describing her new executive and I looked the dude up (unique name, very easy to find). Indeed he's the looker type, mid 50's, expensive suit, helmet hair... J2 got quite disappointed when it turned out he lives in Utah and is a practicing Mormon with the requisite wife and half a dozen kids . Not likely EA or PA material. 

It's a bit of a fetish to observe your spouse in her early attempts to charm someone else I suppose...


----------



## In Absentia (Aug 21, 2012)

john117 said:


> I'm not sure anyone in this world is "normal" especially if your definition of normal is a bit more than June Cleaver...
> 
> As a more than amateur  psychologist I do not buy Maslow's hierarchy of needs - humans are extremely adaptable and that's why we have persevered. The pyramid works in specific cases like organizational situations but not in general.
> 
> ...




yes, in fact, I said "in principle"...


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Hearts,

Recently you posted about some differences between your 'apology' triggers and your husbands. 

On of the reasons you have a loving, happy marriage is that you are comfortable with stylistic differences and you are not engaged in a power struggle with your H. 

And that's because you are secure. People who feel secure, mostly do what feels right without worrying how it impacts their position on the chessboard. 

My MC - who helped me immeasurably - calls this being authentic. And it's incredibly appealing. 






heartsbeating said:


> You rock... have I mentioned this lately?


----------



## heartsbeating (May 2, 2011)

What touching words, MEM. Thank you.

Stylistic differences... I like that. Sometimes he is indeed the yin to my yang. And sometimes we just annoy the heck out of each other! haha. He researches, I wing it. I'll budget, he takes risks. These two statements unto themselves contradict us as people. But then, many of us are walking contradictions. That's what makes it even more interesting. I do think we share in a mutual respect for what makes each other tick though and have an awareness of when to give more balance to the other than we would normally of ourselves, if that makes any sense whatsoever?


----------



## Tall Average Guy (Jul 26, 2011)

heartsbeating said:


> What touching words, MEM. Thank you.
> 
> Stylistic differences... I like that. Sometimes he is indeed the yin to my yang. And sometimes we just annoy the heck out of each other! haha. He researches, I wing it. I'll budget, he takes risks. These two statements unto themselves contradict us as people. But then, many of us are walking contradictions. That's what makes it even more interesting. I do think *we share in a mutual respect for what makes each other tick* though and have an awareness of when to give more balance to the other than we would normally of ourselves, if that makes any sense whatsoever?


I see this as the key. Because without respect for your partner, I don't see how anything else can be maintained.


----------



## Maria Canosa Gargano (Jan 30, 2015)

Anon Pink said:


> I know I know I know.... But I defy any parent of a daughter to be okay with the likelihood that their daughter will be the primary income earner thus effectively excluding any possibility that she will be able to stay at home to take care of her children? Particularly given the fact that this daughter has always maintained she intended to work only part time once she became a mother.
> 
> I don't know what the answer is but it is painful watching this relationship knowing she will always be supporting him.


Why is that? I am with a man where I make easily twice as much income as him. When we started dating I knew that and it never once bothered me. It bothered him more, but that's not why I love him and we now joke about it more than anything.

But neither did I want to be a SAHM or a mother so that may change the dynamics a lot.

What about the dad staying home for the children? I understand what you are saying and trying to be as realistic as possible as in that is what the majority of women and men will want. But perhaps this specific woman and man you are talking to have other priorities in their relationship.


----------



## Maria Canosa Gargano (Jan 30, 2015)

Fozzy said:


> Ok, I'll bite. Father of three daughters.
> 
> I don't mind at all if they're the primary breadwinners who marry the guys that turn their crank. Why? Because SHE MARRIED A GUY WHO TURNS HER CRANK for starters. Also? As the primary breadwinner, SHE won't be the one left out in the cold if it does fall apart.
> 
> ...


And yes, this is always what my parents taught me. I quite like the idea of earning enough for myself no matter what.


----------

