Waiting More Than a Dozen Years

[TeaEarlGreyHot]

Neither.

There are the more immediate medical issues and then what happens after that. Right now she still needs my help in her care and recovery, though she is making progress. The doctor told her that she may not realize it, but she had a lot of surgery on her ankle and heel. In that regard, I have some sense of responsibility to assist her in her recovery.

Over the longer term, I have been stayed because I simply did not wish to go through the angst that I know WILL occur when I say "I'm done." I realize I should have gone long ago...at least 12 years ago when she made her definitive choice. There was hope (on my part) that she might reconsider and accept my "lowest offer" (that was from 11:59 on 12/31 until we finished on 1/1 every two years. But because it spanned two calendar years, 'we" could still claim "once per year whether we need it or not.") But then her mom suffered a stroke and there were lots of issues to deal with. Being supportive seemed a lot more important than the first year with no sex. And so time has passed me by.

I certainly don't want her to sexual with me if its all for just to keep me from leaving.

[Walking]

Hi Captain

You know the thing about sunk-costs, is that ultimately you need to make a decision about whether it's appropriate to throw good money after bad given the likely return on investment.

There's some interesting socio-economic research out of Harvard recently on the impact sunken costs have on decision making as part of a risk management framework.

There are no easy economic or physiological answers. Some people chose to continue the investment in the hope of breaking even or coming out a bit ahead. Some chose to cut their losses. Some, few who are really lucky and usually have other strategies and information at play even come out ahead after a period of loss.

The thing about risk management in relation to any economic theory is that the appropriate responses are to avoid the risk, accept the risk, control the risk, mitigate against the risk and/or contain the risk. The only unacceptable response is to ignore the risk.

I think you are absolutely right that your wife wouldn’t be OK with you walking out of the marriage. Of course she would be surprised and hurt – because you’ve tolerated the situation in silence long time.

Is that enough of a reason to ignore the sense of dissatisfaction you currently feel? I don’t know. In economic terms – it absolutely wouldn’t be.

[TeaEarlGreyHot]

I won't retrace a lot of what I've written, even recently in another forum) about "letting go."

However, I realze from that conversation that what I had done is "let go" of that part of the marriage where all expectations of what the sexual part of the marriage could look like. And contrary to what a number of people have said here, it isn't a symptom of NGS. It's not that its been ignored for so long, as if it is the only thing to make or break the marriage (it obviously has not), but that there have been other things along the way that I have also "let go" of to the point where there is very little left (for me). There is a certain amount that I am going back to reclaim if only on my own terms. The unanswered question is how much is she willing (or able) to walk back.

On the ignoring part, specifically on the issue of sexual intimacy, I realize that once she said "no" to all future
sexual intimacy, that I "let go" of that as being a part of, or any measure for, the marriage. It was not until a sequence of events nearly two years ago that had me come back to this and have me ask "is this all there is?"

The simple fact was that I just stopped complaining about it once I let go. It did not change a thing and in fact, it made sure that her "no" took full effect. There are other things I just stopped complaining about as well. As I have said, she has just kept pressing until she got "her way." She hates it when I tell her this in this way.

Right now, there is no hope for me "coming out ahead." Rather, it is which is the worse loss scenario. The real problem (for me) is that expectation has crept back into the equation...the expectation that the rest of my life should not be sexless or have a total lack of intimacy. It is broader than that, of course, because I'm asking is this all there is? In a sense this has become her "world" and she lets me stay in it as long as I make the house payment, etc.

But the sexlessness is what this forum discusses.

If I get back to a point of no expectations, then I'll shut this down and the past couple of years will be little more than "a disturbance in the force."

[Walking]

I've been reading lately about how our perception of life colours our reality. It reinforces some of the stuff you were saying to me a few months ago.

One interesting idea I keep coming across (in keeping with the economic theme) is the difference in perception between scarcity and abundance.

There is a view that if we perceive our life in terms of the scarcity of a resource, emotion, relationship etc - that's exactly what we'll get. If we turn it around and expect abundance - that's what we'll get.

I've been trying it out, expecting abundance rather than scarcity - and there seems to be something to it.

I hear what your saying about considering the worse loss scenario – and I hear you saying you wonder if a life outside of your marriage would indeed have any less ‘scarcity’ (sex, money, other resources) than your current life. Seems to me – you get to decide that. You could leave your marriage and continue to live a life scarce in sex, love, resources – or you could receive all the things you want in abundance …. It’s up to you.

[TeaEarlGreyHot]

Virginia:

Remember, economics is a manmade invention created to make weather forecasters look good. And economics can only seem to explain tomorrow, why the thing you predicted yesterday did not happen today.
(Cue the snare shot)

While language can give one a sense of either scarcity or abundance, it must originate from a source based in some reality.

I ran some numbers on the frequency of sexual intimacy in my two relationships that resulted in marriage. With my first love, from the time we became sexually intimate to the last time nearly 11 years later, I estimate that we made love about 1435 times. The initial 6 weeks were probably the most intense at more than 120 times as there was honestly not a single day where we weren't M/L at least twice per day (and 4-6 times on weekends). We were young (20) in summer school on the university campus and just wanted to lose ourselves in each other.

It was a "conversation" for abundance to be sure (even though we wanted each other all the time) and in the first year I conservatively estimate that we made love at least 320 times or nearly once every day. The next year we spent 3 months apart and we hit a bit if a rocky patch as I approached graduation, but after that 4-5 times per week was not unusual (including 2-3 times on the weekends). Even after she became pregnant in our seventh year, the lovemaking was even more intense and just about as frequent.

There was "abundance" and it was based in a reality. Neither of us had a conversation about sexual scarcity. Then, in the 8th year (I'm counting from July to July) there was fairly frequent lovemaking until just before our son was born (~20 times in 8 weeks). Then in the next 3.75 years it was 16 times.

A very dramatic difference. Now, it could be argued that over the 11 year span the average of 135 times per year or about 11 times per month should be considered "abundant."

Do you think the last 3.5 years of the marriage qualifies as "abundant." and that I had unreasonable expectations given what the experience was prior to this?

At the time, this dramatic difference was one the reasons for why my wife justified having an affair. She knew that the difference was so great before and after our son's birth that she preemptively took on someone else that did not have our past history because she was afraid I leave and find someone because of the difference. (Please note there was no "threat of leaving" given on my part).


How about my second love?

In the first year, once we got going, I estimate that we M/L about 200 times. This is based on 2-4 times on weekends, and maybe once in the middle of the week since we lived 40 miles apart. So, it was typically Friday night, once or twice on Saturday (morning and evening) and Sunday morning before the kids were up and before I had to take my son back to my ex-wife was really quite typical. But it started to fall off to maybe 3 times per week, then 2. By the time we got married it was down to twice per month where it stayed for about another year and then dropped to once per month.

And it continued dropping to the point where each time was separated by months. By the time we reached the "last time," 13 years ago it was once about every 8 months.

In total, over that 11 year span, I estimate we M/L about 650 times. Comparitively speaking, much less than with my ex-wife, though I never compared the two directly on quantity. On the quality of lovemaking, both were good AND they had their individual strengths and preferences. But the "abundance" argument can't hold even if the quality is wonderful if you take the frequency down to "zero."

Over that 11 years, that is an average of 59 times per year (or just over once per week). Over the entire 24 year span of this second love/marriage, that average drops to 29 times per year because 13 years of "zero" signifcantly drops the average.

Now, if I take the total number of times I've made love over the span from the first time I made love at the age of 20 to today you'd come up with an average of 58 times/yr or better than once per week. Framed that way, an economics way of averaging, I could make the argument that does not represent scarcity but is actually abundance.

The problem is that argument falls in the context of using a long-term average in place of short-term and mid-term averages.

There are clearly some areas where something being present (money, sexual intimacy) can raise the question "how much is 'enough' when that complaint is present?" But one cannot consider water abundant in a desert where none is present.

Besides, there is nothing "wrong" in reporting on what is actually present without making a judgement as to whether it is scarce or abundant.

The Captain

[TeaEarlGreyHot]

A brief update.

Both jobs went to someone else. I felt good about the interviews. Thats the way it goes sometimes.

[TeaEarlGreyHot]

Virginia:

Here is something I had on my hard-drive from 2002. It comes from another piece (which I am looking for) but summarizes this idea of "not enough."

We are born into a cruel and hostile world, run by a God who has things that He wants us to do and things He doesn’t want us to do. He will punish us with everlasting torture if we don’t get the two right. The world is made even more cruel and hostile by people who run it by having things that they want us to do and things they don’t want us to do. And they will punish and torture us if we don’t get the two right. God, as all powerful, has no power over these people or the way they run the planet or he has given them the power to do these things on his behalf.

One of the first things we become aware of is ourselves as “separate” from everything else and everything else as separate from everything else. In fact, or very first experience of life is the separation from our mothers, the very Source of our Life. This creates the context for our reality, which we experience as one of separation from the Source of Life. We further “celebrate” and promote this separation in the name of freedom, independence, and commendable behavior.

We are not only separate from all Life but from everything else in Life. Everything that exists, exists separate from us. We don’t want it that way, we wish it were otherwise and, indeed we strive for it to be otherwise, but this is the way it is. But wanting it to be otherwise is only allowed under certain situations.

We seek the experience of Oneness, to become part of the Whole again with all things and especially with each other. It seems instinctual, even natural, for we cannot really explain why we seek this Oneness. The only problem is there never seems to be enough of the other to satisfy us. No matter what the other thing is that we want, we cannot seem to get enough of it. We cannot get enough love, time, money. We cannot get enough of whatever it is we think we need in order to be happy and fulfilled. The moment we think we have enough, we decide we want more.

Since there is “not enough” of whatever it is that we think we need to be happy, we must “do stuff” to get as much as we can get. Things are required of us in exchange for everything, from God’s love to the natural bounty of Life. Simply “being alive” is not enough. Therefore we, like all of Life, are not enough.

Because just “being” isn’t sufficient, the competition begins. If there’s not enough out there, we have to compete for what’s there. We view Life from scarcity.

We have to compete for everything, including God.

The competition is tough. It is about our very survival. In this contest only the fittest survive. And to the victor go all the spoils. If we lose, we live a hell on Earth. And after we die, if we are the losers in the competition for God, we experience hell again--this time forever.


I used in part of a discussion on the concept of compassion and "enough."

[Young at Heart]

A brief update.

Both jobs went to someone else. I felt good about the interviews. Thats the way it goes sometimes.

I have been told that life is like baseball. It is a game of statistics. If you get up to the plate and take and miss at three pitches, then in the next inning, get up and miss at the next three pitches (strike out again), and then get up once more in the game and get two strikes, but hit a run, you will be batting over 300. You will be considered a hero and paid millions in the major leagues,even though your success rate is only connecting with one out of nine pitches or less. The point is that to succeed you need to "both get to the plate (i.e. interviews) and swing with your best effort (take the interview) several times before you "connect."

As long as every time you get to the plate you give it your best shot and you make sure you do what you need to get to the plate, you probably are going to do well in the long run. No one can hit a home run off of every pitch they are thrown and no one can expect to hit a run every time they get up to the plate. Life is like baseball. You just need to dust your self off and keep trying.

Good luck, dust yourself off, visualize success and you will hit a run or maybe even a home run in the not too distant future. Only if you give up will life be hell on earth.

[TeaEarlGreyHot]

Interestingly, in one of the jobs (where there was the greatest competition) I was told I was the second choice. From a consultants POV (which I was once) you might as well be dead last.

On the positive, I was told that there is an upcoming position that they would like me to apply for that proabaly matches and will fully use my capabilities.

The Captain

[TeaEarlGreyHot]

Now 13 years as of 1300 EDT today

The Captain