I just read most of chapter 11 from "Passionate Marriage" and even though it is a tough read, the ideas seem pretty reasonable. Here is what I gathered from this little part of the book, but I am not sure that maybe I interpreted his ideas correctly.
1) LD woman actually CAUSE their HD husbands to become less desirable to them. How, because the HD husband starts doing things in a way that makes it seem like he is begging for sex. He is not confident, which is what the woman wants.
2) A HD husband must force the LD woman to make a choice, either "WANT" your husband or divorce. She must regain her desire. Problems arise when they are not forced to choose.
3) Mercy sex, or duty sex, is very bad for the relationship. Any man that will accept this kind of sex does not have self respect and confidence, which then causes the LD woman to lose her desire for the man that is willing to accept crap from her.
4) The HD man must regain his self repect and confidence bu chosing to not allow himself to reamin in a marriage with a woman that is LD, and to not allow her to give him crap for sex.
Did I get this right? And wow, this really makes it clear to me as the HD guy. I must expect her to "WANT" me, and if she refuses to, then I must be willing to keep my self respect by DUMPING her? And where do the innocent children of the marriage fit into this whole picture.
Can somebody that has a firm understanding of his book kind of explain it to me?
1) LD woman actually CAUSE their HD husbands to become less desirable to them. How, because the HD husband starts doing things in a way that makes it seem like he is begging for sex. He is not confident, which is what the woman wants.
Can somebody that has a firm understanding of his book kind of explain it to me?
CeMar,
I have not read the book in question, but I do have a comment on the first point. As the LD in our R, I totally agree with the POV that a whiny, begging, crabby H is not an attractive H. I've told H that I find him more attractive and desireable when he is being assertive but I think it went in one ear and out the other. He still thinks that whining and bitching about the lack of sex in our R is going to just make me fall into bed with him...
I haven't read that book, and I have no firm understanding of anything, but as regards the "innocent children of the marriage", I think that a REAL man is willing to do what is best for them. In my view, a marriage that is not openly hostile or abusive, is bound to be better for them than living in poverty (or near it) with a single parent. Not to mention the loss of love and self-esteem inherent in that arrangement, since they can't understand why the breakup happened, and a lot of them end up blaming themselves regardless of how it is handled. I have heard about studies that showed children are generally better off even in poor marriages than they are in broken homes. That is the major reason I am still with W...
I have 3 children, 8 12 and 14. What is best for them is to have 2 lovinf parents in the home. Unfortunately, being married to a ND women pretty much means I have NOTHING of any value in my marriage currently. So for ME to have happiness, I must ruin their lives by breaking up the family. This is not an option for me, YET!!! It gets closer and closer everyday though.
This is the OPPOSITE of what I think that "passionate Marriage" is trying to say. A confident man that respects himself will not tolerate a marriage to a woman that can not desire. This is where it all starts getting confusing again.
CeMar, I was ONLY speaking from the standpoint of the kids, NOT the standpoint of a desperate and lonely and unfulfilled HD.
Caution: Opinion follows... your milage may very:
I agree with you that "the best" thing for the kids is to be in a loving family with two parents who love, respect and support one another. However, if this is not possible, then the NEXT best thing is to continue to be in a home with two parents who love and care for them, as long as the sitch between the parents is not openly hostile (yelling, constant bickering, back-biting, name-calling, etc.) or abusive (as above, but worse, and including physical agression or violence). They will be better off from almost every perspective. Economically... no contest. Emotionally, how can there be any question? Not to mention that as long as the family stays "intact", there is at least SOME hope that the sitch can be saved.
Now, in the above scenario, the person who REALLY loses out is the HD spouse. They, in effect, sacrifice at least part of their life for the good of their children. Not everyone can or should do this, but my opinion is that FAR too few people chose this route these days. People have become lazy and self-centered, for the most part. WAY too many people consider it an "easy thing" to break up a home, and leave their family, on the mere basis that they "feel unfulfilled", and "don't want to be married anymore". They have "grown apart" or they feel that their spouse is "stifling them". HOGWASH!! If they have kids, then they have a RESPONSIBILITY to those kids, to provide them with the BEST environment that they POSSIBLY can.
That said, however, I do agree with Dr. Phil that sacrificing one's WHOLE life under such circumstances is foolish and unneccessary. If a M is simply not working, and one has done EVERYTHING one can to resolve the sitch, then when the kids are old enough to handle a breakup, it is time to move on. Howver, it is definitely necessary to continue trying right up until the end, or until EVERY possible avenue has been explored.
Barring medical conditions, I think when you are in a relationhip where there is no -- or minimal -- physical intercourse and physical affection, you are looking at a relationship where BOTH parties are suffering from a 'lack' of something.
Even when you are faced with a medical condition, a person can 'chose' to do what they are able to communicate love in a way that is most meaningful to their spouse. No, the world does not need to 'rcok' for you, the sex may not even 'do' anything for you, but if you KNOW it does something significant for your spouse, you can chose to love them in that manner simply because it is meaningful to THEM. This does not mean 'duty sex,' this does not mean giving a loud sigh and saying, 'oh, all right, if you MUST.' That is not loving to me. That is demeaning, resentful and caustic, and certainly mean-spirited.
Unfortunately, I think what happens to most couples is they get into an emotional 'stand-off.' Because you are not recieving love in a way that is meaningful to you, you have little or no motivation to love your spouse in a way that is meaninful to them. The chasm only gets bigger and bigger in this scenario. SOMEONE HAS TO STOP THE MADDNESS, and if you are not willing to commit to a six month 'trial,' of giving to your spouse in a manner that is meaningful to them, without any expectation of 'getting' anything in return, I think you are going to have a hard time getting anything up and off the ground.
The way I look at it is, the state you are in is sh!t anyway. What's another six months if you think you may have some hope of turning the ship, or at least answering once and for all that you have tried everything possible, in your power, before you cut the cord for good.
Is it fair? No. Will it work? There's no gaurantee.
I just ordered The Passionate Marriage, so give me a few days to get it and read the infamous chpt. 11. I'll let you know if I get the same thing out of it as you.
Just curious. Do you think you have an idea what your wife' love language is?
Corri, I haven't forgotten your earlier thread and will get back to it this week. But, I agree absolutely with what you say about a 6 month trial where you give to your spouse what he or she truly needs; and that's exactly what I'm going to do for my husband for the next 6 months. I started a few nights ago (after I realized just how unkind and unloving I've been to him in our marriage, while blaming him for all the problems). The results so far have been stunning, but I'm already starting to feel those old familiar emotions of anxiety and wanting to withdraw emotionally; and it will be a battle, but one well worth fighting, for me not to give in to those emotions and to accept the vulnerability.
I don't recall ever seeing a good marriage when I was growing up; and my husband's parents' marriage was definitely not a model of a good marriage (he doesn't remember his father ever hugging or kissing his mother; I don't recall them even ever talking to each other; and there was alcoholism and abuse by both of them). I look at my own family and see that all my sisters except one have divorced their husbands.
You're right, somebody has to stop the madness; and I want my kids to one day be able to say that their parents loved each other and showed them what a good marriage looks like.
Already, one of my sons, who's in college, gave us a compliment. Most of his friends, including his girlfriend, have divorced parents, and he said many of them say they wish their parents had stayed together and that they're afraid to get married because of the high divorce rate. My son told me that he looked at his dad and me and figured that wouldn't be a problem for him because he figured that if the two of us were able to stick it out and stay married that he'd be able to do the same one day. So, we've showed our sons that it's possible to stay married even when things are bad; now I want to show them that a not-so-good marriage can be transformed into a good marriage when one partner starts making positive changes to meet the needs of the other spouse.
Even if you're on the right track, you'll get run over if you just sit there. Will Rogers
To love at all is to be vulnerable. Love anything, and your heart will certainly be wrung and possibly be broken. C. S. Lewis
