I think a lot of the HD/LD situation is well...situationally based. An LD women is HD for some things when certain key factors are met. An HD women is also LD when certain situations occur. That means that LD women can be HD in the right circumstances unless there is a medical or mental illness present. I'm not saying that they'll stay in that state, just that reaching it is possible. The problem , oft times, is that they don't WANT to work on it.
That really leaves an HD man with only two options. Accept the LD on their own terms and be satisfied with what can be achieved or push for a new relationship.
Sexual counselors can help get to the bottom of a woman's LD:ness. They can also help HD men to understand the problems on their own terms.
If you're going to wait until your kids are older you might as well invest the time in some intimate counseling for you and your mate. Don't take no for an answer if this is so important to you that you will leave the relationship. If you do, then you're really not that committed yourself. Once you've exhausted all angles then you'll be able to shut the door on the current, poor, relationship with no problems or guilt. Take the time to locate a sexual counselling service in your area and drag her there if you have to. Them's my advice, and I's stickin' tuit.
I realise I'm coming late to this discussion but hope no-one minds me chipping in.
I feel Corri's comments are spot on when she points out they dynamic of a male that has had a happy childhood and is used to being nurtured coming into a R with a strong female used to nurturing.
Often that strong female will have had some dysfunctional aspect or some trauma in her own background, but this trauma may not necessarily have led to her being a dysfunctional adult. It may have strengthened her character and helped her grow as a person. If the man has not had the same type of experience then he will be a "child" to her "adult". I see that in myself, in Corri, in Mojo, in MrsHD and probably in Mrs Cemar, plus many others here. My own H's extreme toddler reaction to the birth of our son indicated his "child" status.
Everything Cemar ever writes about wanting a close sexual bond with his wife indicates a man who has not grown up since toddlerhood. He wants that feeling he had as a baby cradled in his mother's arms, that total immersion. Why is it a turn-off to a strong nurturing female to have to nurture a man as though he were a child. Why can she not find long-term sexual fulfilment in doing so? That is a very hard question to answer and the only way I can answer it is to say that sex isn't sex with a child. On Mojo's thread I made a post about chocolate brownies and about children licking off the frosting. Child-men do that, they just lick the frosting they never bite, or worse they want you to lick the frosting off of them. And if you say "bite me" they say eww. (I think LFL and Karen1 know what I'm talking about).
I hope everyone realises I use the term bite metaphorically.
There is of course some distress in the woman. There is some part of her that was traumatised and felt the need for a non-threatening child-man. A teddy-bear to cuddle up to. But that wears thin pretty quickly. The teddy-bear can be soothing for a while but she really needs another adult, a person for whom she feels respect. And the child-man does not need another mother, although that feels comforting at first, he resents her control and wants to be allowed to grow up. If the child-man starts to assert himself the Mother-woman will often react in a knee-jerk mother type way and attempt to stop him (MrsHD) he will often react by having a toddler type tantrum. She then rolls her eyes and sucks in her breath wondering why she is always the one that has to be the adult around here. And so it goes.
Women in this position need to get out of their H's way, let him grow up, catch yourself everytime you are trying to stop him or allowing him not to. (Note to self: stop letting H sleep through every Sunday morning!)
Cemar: Grow up! You'll be glad you did.
Fran
if we can be sufficient to ourselves, we need fear no entangling webs Erica Jong
Deida: Then if she cannot or will not open up in love, he might decide to end his relationship with her, harboring no anger or resentment, because he knows he has done everything he could."
Cemar: But Deida also makes it clear that if she does not desire you, don't let that bother you, but instead, DUMP her and try again.
Cemar: Did we not just say the same thing, just with different words?
In my opinion no. What you say and what I interpret from Deida ARE different.
First, in my interpretation of Deida, a man would have to be a superior man and then IF and only IF he is living a superior life and his woman was unable to open up in love (Not unable to desire him - an important difference) he might have to face the choice that nothing more can be done and in doing so he would harbor no anger or resentment for her.
Using the word dump denotes an anger and frustration which is terribly obvious in everything you write about your wife. I have never heard anything compassionate or loving about your wife from you. I have to imagine that you have that same attitude when you are with her and I cannot imagine it is very attractive.
You are free to do whatever you want to do. I gave up long ago expecting you to understand anything I write.
But what is happiness except the simple harmony between a man and the life he leads? ~Albert Camus
Hap I see allot of wisdom in what you have written. The thing is that we all have childlike elements to our personalities at times and thats a good thing imho. What many of us have to do is learn that we can take care of that kid part in ourselves and that others are capable of the same in themselves.
Back to Deida. One of the issues that I have with Deidas writing is that he doesn't do enough in my opinion differentiating between different levels in the "way of the superior man". He talks of the three kind of relationship but does go far enough in describing the possibility of moving backwards and through these different stages. Some men will find that they are moving backwards when they think they are moving forward become macho cliched parodies of masculinity, male bimbos while they believing that they are developing as more "manly" men.
I'm going to wander a bit in my thoughts here,sorry.
One of Dedias good buddies Ken Wilbur writes about among many other things what he calls the " pre-trans fallacy " its a fairly simple idea unlike allot of his stuff and I was reminded by with what Hap wrote about seeking to be joined with mother. The pre-trans fallacy in Wilburs words.
"In any recognized developmental sequence, where development proceeds from pre-x to x to trans-x, the pre states and the trans states, because they are both non-x states, tend to be confused and equated, simply because they appear, at first glance, to be so similar."
So how does this fit.
In one way it speaks to a man confusing being an jerk with being manly.
In another way it may fit.
Hap seems to view that Cemars desire is that of an infant longing to be enveloped by its mother, while Cemar sees that he is reaching for ultimate happiness. Its pretty hard not to read something like ultimate happiness and not think of it as elevating sex into the realm of the spiritual.
If we look at it as terms of differentiation the infant has not yet differentiated itself from the outside world particularly, mommy and daddy. Over time the child should normally develop it's own sense of separateness, especially from mommy and daddy.
So we have moved from undifferentiated to differentiated now if the child starts to experience something beyond differentiation it may seem like the infantile state, that's allot like the kind of judgement Freud would make or in this case Hap.
Equally on the other hand anything that is experienced as being undifferentiated can be elevated to that of a higher developmental state, more like jung and in this case Cemar.
So here we have the same thing look at through two separate lenses on one side we have the desire as being reduced down to those of an infant and on the otherside we have elevation to that of a spiritual event.
In my own life I have had a few times where I know that I have gone down the scale with women and really gone down to an infantile state. I mean really down to the level where I've looked at their face and had the world fall away and the edges of my vision go into soft focus and felt absolutely loved and loving.
I could say that it was a spiritual event if I felt that that was true but I don't. At those times I really think it was a kind of regression back to that infantile state of being absolutely enraptured by the feminine. I can only image that the feelings are similar to those of an infant in a secure relationship, not because of a lack of such a relationship but because of an inability to remember so far back.
At the same time I can't be absolutely sure that I was not exercising my own reductionist fallacy and reducing a more developmentally advanced experience to that of a lower level of development because they are both not "normal" events of consciousness and I didn't not have the spiritual framework to place the events into another context.
Congratulations if you can make sense of what I have just written.
Maybe you can get this analogy, Cemar. Let's say the man is the wood and the woman is the match and a healthy relationship is one with a lot of oxygen and no rain in the atmosphere. I think that all Deida is saying is that there's no point in pointing the finger of blame at the match if you aren't very good wood yourself. The fact is if you are a weak pile of lumber if you encounter a really HDW you are just going to burn up like somebody dumped a bucket full of gasoline on you and there won't be any Cemar left. A strong sexual relationship needs to be built and tended in the same way a fire needs to be built and tended. All the elements necessary need to be in place and all potential hazards need to be anticipated and planned for. It's not an easy skill to master. You could learn a lot if you would listen to the advice offered here by others. Even though I ended up divorcing, I feel like I have gained great benefits by participating in this BB. I think you would too if you would just open yourself up a little to some advice being offered to you.
Here's a little exercise you might try. Pretend like you were single and maybe going to attempt dating on the internet. What would you write about yourself and what you were looking for in a relationship that would attract the kind of woman that you want?
"Tell me, what is it you plan to do with your one wild and precious life?" - Mary Oliver
I could say that it was a spiritual event if I felt that that was true but I don't. At those times I really think it was a kind of regression back to that infantile state of being absolutely enraptured by the feminine. I can only image that the feelings are similar to those of an infant in a secure relationship, not because of a lack of such a relationship but because of an inability to remember so far back.
I had to read your post a couple times but I think I get what you are trying to convey- lol. I know what you mean because I would say that although I can have red hot monkey sex with a guy who is operating totally on an "adult" plane, I can only "fall in love" with a guy who is in some way able to allow himself or reveal himself as boyishly vulnerable. Clearly, I have had the tendency to err on the side of going with this vibe rather than wanting the vibe that would allow me to be more vulnerable. But that doesn't negate the fact that there is something valid about what you are trying to convey. If I am going with that feeling the gesture I will most usually make is that I will run my fingers through a man's hair. When I was avoiding touching my 2bx because I wanted to avoid stiff body rejection, the first comment he made that let me know that he noticed/missed my attention was along the lines of "I wish you would run your fingers through my hair like you think I'm a good person.". The funny thing is that when I made that gesture with NG he said "You're going to erase your fingerprints if you do that" because his hair is so rough but I could tell that he liked it anyway. I think the important thing is just that you have some balance in a sexual/intimate relationship. Like I was making out with NG the other night and he got me into a position where I was momentarily afraid that I was going to fall and he said "it's okay, I've got you." With my 2bx I was almost always afraid I was going to fall and even when I wasn't he usually dropped me.
"Tell me, what is it you plan to do with your one wild and precious life?" - Mary Oliver
I have never seen myself as needing to be cradled by my wife. I just don't understand the grow up part. Grow up to what? Does wanting a fulfilling sex life make me childlike? It almost sounds like your saying that grown men don't need sex very often. If I need to grow up, what would indicate that I have grown up?
