Divorcebusting.com Forums Open Forums THE SEX-STARVED MARRIAGE Still Alive III: Lunchtime for Zombies

Okay. [thinking].Agreed.Wait! A truism (obvious truth, a self-evident truth, etc.) in the context of a dating relationship, yes. In the context of marriage? I don't think it is so obvious. Not that it was an "expectation" that we'd have a reasonably decent (in frequency and quality) sex life after marriage, but that we wouldn't have to go through a constantly changing set of labors in which we prove how committed we are to the woman before she would agree to make love with us. No, they should have figured out we were damn well committed to the relationship when we asked them to marry us, and certainly when we said "I do." Don't you think they should have figured out that we BELIEVE in the relationship as we fathered children? As we signed deeds to houses with them? As we talked about where we wanted to retire with them?

How STRONG must the relationship be, Barbie? Or is it that I have to constantly reassure you to calm your own self-esteem issues? Or is it just another lame excuse not to ML with us, a la, "I have a headache" "too tired" "mad at you for watching the game instead of going shopping with me" etc.?

Sorry, chrom, but it's a logical error there, assigning "truism" to the statements, just because they are reasonable in one forum. Marriage, and the commitment required to enter into it, should come with the assumption that the relationship is strong.

Yeah, I could see the first statement, in a dating context, as being a challenge. However, since my W and I had sex on what was basically our second date, it was a fairly short-lived challenge.

Hairdog, who adds the caveat, "but of course this is all water under the bridge given my recent re-assertion of my manly irresistible-ness and my 'let bygones be bygones' philosophy"

Hairy,
[gears turning] But if you believe that the woman's side statement is implied due to marriage, it means you are taking the R for granted, or at least expecting her to. That small shift in thinking (probably not even concious) could change the dynamic of the R enough for her to not feel it is as strong as it needs to be to ML, KWIM? Think about it, as a M, you've married and so it is easy to figure the R is squared away and therefore you just do the simplest of maintenance on it rather than cultivating it to grow. Just watering a garden and pulling the bigger weeds when they get too ugly will yield a garden that looks a lot different in a few years than one that has been carefully fertilized, reseeded when needed, pruned, etc. We as men tend to do more of the obviously needed maintenance and less of the cultivating, then in a few years when it doesn't look as good as it did when we started, we stand there scratching our heads trying to figure out what we did wrong...Heck, we pulled the weeds when we saw them, chased the critters out and made sure it was watered. Wha'hoppen? Not saying that the ladies aren't also doing their part...just trying to point out that I think we're onto something here, and it smells a lot like a bit of subtle taking-for-grantedness that slowly eats away at paradise thorugh the roots and unseen.

HD,

Wanted to clarify that I do NOT think that pair of statements is a truism, that was the point I was trying to make. What I was saying was IF that pair of statements were always true, then it would be difficult to get past the first date, kwim? I think it is the burden of the man (cynically speaking, on the other hand it is a fun part of being a man) to have to be the one to prove that the R is strong before sex occurs. Granted, a lot of people will jump in the sack with little provocation these days (not saying that is necessarily bad, just risky), but I think in terms of building a long-term R, the man must be patient about the sexual issue.

I agree with your idea that the woman SHOULD be able to see the marriage certificate, the home loan, the rug-rats, the joint bank accounts, etc. and KNOW that their is strength in the R. OTOH, all of these things can be in place, and yet still the R is weak. You could have all of the above and still not love someone, have OW on the side, etc.

Hope this is making sense. As I mentioned to Choc, I've been kinda wallowing myself for awhile now so my thoughts are not as cogent.

GGB,

I think your points are well made. We often just assume as men that the W will be the one to tend to all the little weeds while we pull the big ones (kindof like BF's lion analogy), and I do see the wisdom in such an arrangement, as woman are I believe innately better at managing the R (emotionally healthy women anyway). However, I think sometimes it isn't just pulling weeds, its planting flowers that is necessary, and I think that is where a man can really excel. The difficulty lies when we expect a flower to be planted in return.

Also, as is the case for me, sometimes we plant weeds ...

Chrome

Chromedome, yes, That is more or less the point I was trying to make, that pulling the weeds is not enough to end up with an award winning garden...you must also cultivate flowers and introduce new ones at time goes on in order to keep the garden fresh. It isn't necessarily in a man's make-up to think of adding the flowers or changing the ones that are there. If the man has never been shown how to choose the flowers, then he's either got to learn or be satisfied with a mediocre garden. Likewise, if the woman doesn't suggest flowers... well I guess I'm getting carried away here.

Me, I often have a hard time telling the weeds from the flowers

Chrom,

An insightful and interesting set of questions, but I think your logic is flawed, the punch to which Hairdog already beat me. To answer you more directly, "How do men and women get past the dating stage?"

A: Hormones run high during the courtship, whereby an HD partner looks HD, but an LD partner also appears HD.

It's a physiological fact, needed to propagate the species. Sure, I think the HD male might also smell nicer, dress nicer, and act nicer during the dating stage than after 20 years of marriage, but I also think there is an element of "bait-&-switch" that goes on with the LD partner as well. Again, these may be only physiological, uninentional and no malice aforethought, but I can tell you, Mrs. Choc. used to be the one to jump on ME at night, with a mischievous "C'mon . . . you don't really want to sleep now, do you?"

I do think it's interesting, though, that during COURTSHIP, the man's phrase sounds unreasonable, and during MARRIAGE, the woman's phrase seems more unreasonable.

Choc.

Choc,



I think we are debating past each other. Not to put too fine a point on it, but hormones at play may DEFEAT the woman's statement "I need a strong R before I give sex." And in my case defeated the statement "I need sex before a strong R." So therefore both statements are not at play and the duo is not a truism at that stage of the game. The point I am trying to make is that while for many of us here, that duo of statements is the sticking point in our marriage, i.e. each person is waiting for the other to make the first move, be vulnerable, etc., I don't believe that the duo of statements was at play in the beginning of our respective R's. Therefore something to consider would be trying to get back to the dating mindset. I don't mean just have "dates" where you go out together alone, etc., try to get back into that mindset. Woo your W in heart and mind, don't just go through the physical motions while harboring emotional resentments. Granted, it takes a LOT of strength to do that in the face of rejection and feelings of entitlement.

OTOH, I agree that the man should not HAVE to court his W all the time. Part of the marriage contract seems to be this feeling of comfort, of being able to relax and not have to be on your A game all the time. But if we are in a situation where the weeds are overgrowing the garden, we need to step back and realize that there is shared responsibility for the garden getting into that state, and a major effort is now needed to repair it. Though, both people must make that effort. If you do all you can and the other person does nothing, it might be time to abandon the plot.

I definitely hope you do not think that I am implying anything about your situation. You may very well have done everything you can humanly do, and still nothing. Only you can truly know if there is more that you could do.

Chrome

True, both people need to work at the garden eventually, BUT and this is a big BUT, one person can get the ball rolling by going in and tearing up the weeds, and generally gussying up the garden so that it doesn't look so bad to the other. Again, I cite CSW.

The woman is talking with her bunny and the man is talking with his monkey. They are both talking from child spirits about what will make them feel like they are cared for. If the man truly wants to talk to the bunny, as opposed to some other female animas, then he needs to spank his own monkey and bring out the bull (balls) and/or the lion (strong muscles, rock solid hard-on). NEVER try to talk to the lioness when you are feeling like a monkey unless you want to get swatted. You can try to talk directly to her monkey but you risk looking silly. Best bet is to ask her cow if her monkey can come out to play.

Okay, I need to edit my last post. I'm not as sure about how the male animas work for obvious reasons. It might be the bull that has the rock solid hard-on. Anyway, the bunny wants some animas that it strong and muscular that can hold her firmly, like how you would pick up a real bunny in order to calm her. She'll accept a hard-on as a muscle only if it's strong enough to carry her. If you ask the bunny to "turn you on" or "get you off" you are signaling that your hard-on is weak. The bunny wants to be made love to or romanced so you need to have a real strong hard-on to do all the romantic stuff while you try to keep yourself turned on enough to f*ck at the same time. You can approach the bunny with your puppy dog but you won't have sex just a nice warm cuddle in the basket.

Mojo:
So, to clarify, the four corners of the man's square are: bull, lion, monkey, and puppy?

As for the garden analogy, chrom, ggb, choc, I get it. I just feel, sometimes, that, as I pull the things I think are weeds, and nurture the things I think are flowers (truly, sometimes it's hard to tell the difference), I look up from my labors and see that I'm the only on in the garden proper. My W walks by from time to time, shaking her head, tsk-tsking, with lots of criticism and few suggestions as to how to make it a better garden. When I ask her to join me, she mutters about how dirty it is, and how I need to do a better job of cultivating BEFORE she'll trudge in.

Bygones.

Now, though, I'm realizing that I've done as much as one person can do, and that any improvement in the garden is only going to happen with the two of us. Instead of responding to her tsk-tsk, I'm telling her I want her to get her azz in here and work with me. She hasn't come in yet, but I can tell she's thinking about it. If she trudges in, I'm prepared to tell her to get out and come back in with a better attitude, because I've put too much work into the meager garden for her to come in here with anything else besides enthusiasm.

Hairdog, who's channeling his inner "bullion"