When it's a one-way street...part 5

[Accuray]

CV, I do enjoy these discussions!

However, I doubt there is usually any specific agreement on the frequency of sex before marriage. So when a HD partner is expecting more sex from the LD partner than the LD partner is willing to provide, the expectation isn't based on any verbal agreement, just on an assumption or a sense of entitlement. Or a maybe selfish desire.

This is actually another very common issue in marriage, you both come into marriage with a "hidden model" of what marriage looks like that may not match that of your partner, and to your point, it's almost never discussed in advance. For instance, you may have grown up in a house where your father did all the yardwork and took out the trash, whereas your spouse grew up in a house where the parents did those things together, or share responsibility. Because you just assume "that's the way it is", it doesn't occur to either of you to have that discussion before you get married. Then, once your in it, one of you will probably be disappointed -- one will expect that the man does the yardwork and the trash and will be disappointed that the man is looking for help, and the man will be disappointed that the woman just assumes it's his job and doesn't volunteer to help.

Sex is only one example of that, but there are many, extending through parenting, church attendance, household chores, how money is spent, even how clean your house "should" be is typically the subject of "secret assumptions" that have never been negotiated.

I think one silver lining of having a relationship crisis is that it's motivation to reconsider all of this and actually have discussions about it.

Therefore, if the HD partner is wanting something more from the LD partner, they should be willing to offer something in exchange, instead of just expecting it "because......???"

That's actually problematic -- in general it's not a good idea to "give in order to get". That leads to score keeping and having "covert contracts" where because you've done X Y and Z, you are "owed" A, B, and C. I don't think it's a good idea to make sex a bargaining chip in a marriage. It's supposed to be an experience that you share that strengthens your emotional relationship and therefore your marriage (at least according to the books and marriage counselors). At the very least it's not very romantic to think about a scenario where you'll provide sex if your partner does the dishes 4 nights in a row.

Is this true with men with their friends? Do men feel neglected by their male friends if they're not sitting silently in the same room? That was my analogy about everyone getting together so they can fall asleep with each other in the room. Somehow that's bonding?

Women bond by talking, men bond by "doing". When men get together, they get together to "do" things together, not to sit around and talk. They may talk while they are doing their activity, but the focus is the activity. When I think about meeting a friend of coffee versus going on a bike ride with a friend, I'm going to choose the bike ride every time. A lot of my male discussions are conducted on chair lifts between ski runs.

That's typically where men get into trouble with an "office spouse", they feel a bond with a woman they are working with by virtue of the shared work activity.

One tip I saw for women who feel their husbands don't talk to them is to offer to engage in activities with them, because once you start the activity, they will often start talking.

How do you feel differently now? I know your sitch, just specific to this?

Well, we both read "The Sex Starved Marriage", so we each got to see the situation from the other perspective. I now understand that in order for my W to want to have sex, she needs quality time and conversation from me first. She doesn't derive connection directly from sex like I do, it needs to be built up in advance, in ways that she appreciates.

Secondly, we explicitly discussed frequency versus having "secret expectations" of how things "should" be. Third, the book helped her understand how important it is to me in a way that she did not appreciate before, and that has made a difference.

I only have the expectation because that's what he tells me he will do. Just like the fidelity. If he said he was going to fall asleep, I wouldn't have the expectation. And I wouldn't agree to "watch" the movie with him in the first place. I can put out the boundaries just as you said, in fact I have. H has an issue with it. That's the only reason it came up, because H doesn't accept my boundaries.

Regardless of what he tells you, you have experience and evidence of what's actually going to happen.

With regard to your boundary, the key to a boundary is that H doesn't have to accept it, because the consequence is something YOU will do, not something H has to do or not do.

Unless he ties you to your chair, he can't prevent you from leaving the room with the movie once he falls asleep. Sure he can complain, but you were very clear up-front about what was going to happen, so too bad. I wouldn't feel guilty about that at all.

Boundaries are healthy. One thing I read was that although your H will complain, he'll actually feel better about you -- the fact that you set boundaries and stand up for yourself makes you someone he can rely upon to do what you say, and also makes you more valuable!

I don't feel you're argumentative, and even if you were I enjoy it, it makes me think.

Accuray