I agree, dangerous assumption. BUT, I cant see any compassion using these specific words or that by doing so the goal was to "fix" something that isnt working. One of the worst things a woman can say to a man is that he is a bad lover, could/can ruin his mojo for good. And I cant see a loving wife express that in a way like that hoping it will improve things. K
She was bored and sexually frustrated and let something vile slip out. I dont think she was trying to DO anything. It was a crappy thing to say and she obviously didn't feel good about it.
Or, she's just an awful abusive b*tch who was trying to inflict pain...
These are complex issues, not fun to be on either end.
And, no, I never said that to H, but I sure felt it at times and it was hellish...
I can't imagine saying anything like that, either, and I've been there. That absolutely doesn't mean she said it WITH INTENT TO WOUND. Hell, maybe she did, but it is the assessment of a fool to *assume* that, since it's equally possible that she was sick to death of tepid, unconnected, futile sex and/or relationship and lashing out in pain for lack of reasonable skills to communicate openly/well about it, like AK says above.
This board and this world are full of intelligent, educated, well-intentioned people who find their marital ship foundering on this particular rock. Ego seems to be SO inextricably wrapped around sexuality and very few people know where to begin addressing bedroom stuff. It's sad, but not surprising, how couples who would go to the ends of the earth to find the right expert help for their children if they needed it seem completely unable to take the step toward seeking a sex therapist or even talking openly about the problems for the sake of their marriage and themselves.
"Show me a completely smooth operation and I'll show you someone who's covering mistakes. Real boats rock." -- Frank Herbert
(to repeat myself) What did you think when she said the ugh boring during foreplay? What did you say/do? Why?
I rolled back to my side of the bed. Stared at the ceiling a bit. And said, "Okay, what is it I should be doing?" And when she did the "I didn't mean...." thing, I said something to the effect of, "No, it's alright, I mean if you're not happy then you should be able to tell me. I wish you'd timed it better, but..." And so she specified some business, and I proceeded to do the business, but the fact was that neither of us was into it at that point -- I mean, it seemed sort of phony -- and both of us could sense it, and so it just sort of meandered off into a mutual (and mutually unsatisfied) "well, goodnight."
And that was the last time we were ever together.
Ouchy ouchy ouch. Flashback; shake it off. I would say, kudos to you, dude, for not taking your toys and going home after the initial insult, but inquiring further *at the time*. Jolly good show. But .... neither of you pursued it. And it just hid and festered. She wasn't happy, so she should have spoken up (at greater length and less hurtfully) but the same could be said of you, sounds like. Someone gotta drag this stuff, kicking and screaming, out from under the bed.
Originally Posted By: SmileysPerson
Quote:
What did you think when you got the lackluster response to your anniversary gestures? What did you say/do? Why?
I said it was okay, I understood she was busy. I mean, it's not like it was the first time. And what was I going to do? Make a scene in a restaurant? Stalk off in anger? It's what she did the last few years. I kept up my end in the Symbolic Recognition Department, and she didn't. It was what it was.
So you don't see any possibilities between pitching a fit in a restaurant/marching off in a hissy fit and .... never mentioning it again??? Seems to me there's a lot of inbetween to be had there. Or were you too cool for school, didn't 'want to want', couldn't tell her it hurt your feelings and ask wtf was up with zero acknowledgement of your anniversary???
I know we're just getting the dribs and drabs of a whole lotta complicated history here, plus your war experiences and general mental/emtional state must have been a *huge* complicating factor. I hope I'm not coming across unsympathetic; that is not my intention. But it sounds like there was plenty of "la la la don't look at the monster" busted communication to go around.
Of course, that brings us back full circle. You are trying to figure out, "What's in it for you?" Kinda depends on whether she's willing to work too, so of course it's a reasonable question FFF asked. But ya know what? I don't think you can get an answer where you sit right now. IF WAW is willing to recommit to trying anew with you and IF your changes evoke positive changes from her OR if not ... then you will be able to answer. You can't Saturday-evening quarterback the question.
There's two little kidlets to consider when asking the question, "Why bother?" Not trying to answer for you, of course ....
"Show me a completely smooth operation and I'll show you someone who's covering mistakes. Real boats rock." -- Frank Herbert
I was thinking about the topic SP has been bringing up about (paraphrasing) "What if WAS does not change - can there be a recondiliation into an R that is good for both parties INCLUDING LBS?"
My answer: YES
Reasoning: Both parties contributed to a dynamic in the R. If one party changes, the R will be different.
With all due respect, my brother, this is simply a restatement of the basic principle MWD lays out at the beginning of DR, right? If YOU change, then you PRODUCE change -- it's a kind of high school physics model of relationshipping.
And I bought into that for a long time, because it passes the common-sense test.
However, I would submit that you are begging the question when you impart "goodness" to the resulting, post-reconciliation R. It doesn't follow that, simply by one person's changing and improving, the R will change AND improve -- that's a joint probability. It strikes me as being just as likely -- perhaps more likely, given the relative percentages of divorces busted/not-busted, that the R could change but NOT improve. Or that the post-reconciliation R could prove unsatisfying to former LBS who subsequently becomes Walkaway.
It seems to me that if there is to be success in the mode of @Coach and @Greek, BOTH sides have to change -- it has to be a 100% new relationship, not a 50% new (+ some externality) relationship.
One thing we don't talk about a lot around here is the subject of expectations.
FFF and I were chatting about this on-line. She was telling me about a friend of hers who is a borderline Walkaway because, at the age of 50, she's decided that she deserves / wants / needs more sex and her H is unwilling / unable to provide it. This started me on the MWD Sex-Starved Marriage thing, and it struck both of us that we know a lot of people in SSMs.
And then I asked -- as is my wont -- why we assume a marriage is sex-starved. Is it the case that, in Days of Yore, people had more in-couple sex? Or is this an artifact of social expectations? The comparison I used was adolescent girls with body-image problems -- the media creates an ideal type, and we fail (inevitably) to live up to it, and then we look for someone blameworthy. In the case of the eating-disorder victim, she looks at herself; in the case of the SSM, we look (typically) at the spouse.
But is that fair? Is it right? Upon which expectations do we base our evaluations -- our evaluations of ourselves-in-marriage ("change, ye LBS!, for ye failed to live up to expectations!") and our evaluations of what we expect from couple-hood?
Define your N.U.T.S., says that irritating book, which echoes in your comment, "You need to make it clear to her that those things are important to you and reinforce that if she does not."
But isn't it possible that I -- and WAW -- have already defined that N.U.T.? Isn't it indeed within the realm of possibility that Walkaway, before walking-away, has already defined a N.U.T. and LBS just doesn't make the cut? So what is divorce-busting but an attempt to get around Walkaway's pre-existing N.U.T.?
I've defined my absolute N.U.T. -- I will not be a second-choice. Not now. Not at age 47. Not having survived war. It will be incumbent upon WAW to prove, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that I would not be the Number Two Man, some kind of Kohai to Signore's Senpai. More to the point, I won't be Number Two to her. Whatever happens -- if anything happens -- beyond simple Friendyness, has to be based on absolute equality. And right now I don't see her treating me as an equal and, increasingly, I'm not sure she's interested in being my equal. We still appear to be in the table-scraps-to-the-dog mode.
