I'm not that pessimistic for my case. There are other solutions as you know. Basically, when someone has shut off their spouse without clear justification but wants to remain married, they have to recognize that they are at least not in a strong position to be "outraged" at the suggestion of an open marriage in some form or another. In other words, it doesn't make sense to be "outraged" that a spouse wants to have a sexual life.
Mr Bond, I think you, SSM and Earl Gray owe me an apology. You ignored what I actually said, misrepresented my words and made some very disparaging remarks about me. Specifically:
1) I am “Stunningly superficial” 2) My writing is “Almost embarrassing to read” 3) I should be worried about losing custody of my kids because I condone “Rape” 4) I am a “Cave painter” and “Knuckle Dragger” 5) I believe I am entitled to sex from my Wife 6) That I am sexually inadequate 7) That I only care about my satisfaction and have no respect for woman 8) That I belong to a cult 9) That I trivialize sex and believe a woman should just lie back and take it 10) That I see no difference between a wife and a hooker 11) That I think there is something mentally wrong with a woman who doesn’t want sex 12) That I show “Astounding ignorance” regarding woman And on and on……
I am sorry if you think I am being “Rude”. I am not going to dignify these insults with an explanation. I will make it very clear:
NONE OF THESE COMMENTS REFLECT WHAT I BELIEVE, OR WHAT I SAID.
I cannot control what you perceive if your perception is %100 inaccurate. If you ask for clarification on what I believe, what I stated or what my intent is, then I will provide you clarification. I think Accuracy provided a very clear explanation.
You are correct, you have a right to your POV. You can misinterpret what I said, and come to as many ridiculous conclusions as you want. I don’t need to respond to them.
So, there is that entitlement again...you think people "owe" you an apology. You chose that word "owe," you typed that word "owe" and now you have to live with the consequence of that choice. The problem for you is that you've been called out on what you've said, and you don't like it.
I get that. You don't.
Know how I know?
From your very last sentence: "I don’t need to respond to them." And yet your entire post and defensiveness IS entirely a response to them.
Now, I didn't write my post to you in a vacuum. You see, I went all the way back to your beginning and read many of the "Lost in Haiti" postings that you wrote only one year ago, as well as others you wrote. Not one decade ago, one year ago. Some of what I wrote were YOUR concerns or things that you wrote about in how your marriage was going. Plus, I do have my own considerable life experience to draw from. We all have our own filters some of which is based upon actual life experiences and I know that.
I think you forget that until you find that people's view of your words suddenly makes them reactive and you very uncomfortable.
Moreover, in your defensiveness, you go above and beyond that which you accuse others in terms of what your words are, mean and what you believe. Words don't always come across as we intend for them to. AND a consistent pattern of languaging is more than just words being misunderstood every once in a while.
So, let me also be very clear, regardless of whether you meant it in some other way or claim you don't believe this, these words, " What does sex really take? You are asking her to lie on her back for less than 10 minutes and let you have her to show you that she cares for you? it is nothing." are both your words and ones that I find offensive.
As a man, as a husband, as a father and as a step-father for a son and daughter, and as a human being, I find this statement, your statement, offensive.
Got it?
Do you have any questions about that? If so, ask.
You rail about how you are a victim of misperceptions that are "%100 [sic] inaccurate."
Isn't it clear that that those that you think owe you an apology had a similar reaction. Here's what you do when you screw up this badly. Yes, you can say that you were misunderstood but take responsibility that it's your words and the way they "landed" that is at the core of the misunderstanding. Don't blame everyone else for that.
Then withdraw the comment and apologize for writing it so badly that it would have this kind of (crash) landing. Then you have a choice to make. Either rewrite it in a way that both accurately reflects what you believe so that it does not cause the sense of offensiveness or be silent about it.
Notice, I am not whining about how you mischaracterized what I wrote. I wrote part of what I wrote in a way to be provocative, to sometimes be humorous, to sometimes seem outrageous (notice how you took some of that to mean that I was calling you sexually inadequate, which I did not say, but is clearly something you fear. You know how I know? Because you pointed it out) to draw out a reaction and to see if I could draw out the "best" in you or the "worst" in you.
And, no, you won't be getting an apology from me anytime soon. I've given you a path out. You either take it or you don't. I leave that choice to you.
The Captain (Tea, Earl Grey, hot)
Last sex: 04/06/1997 Last attempt: 11/11/1997 W Issues "No Means No" Declaration: 11/11/1997 W chooses to terminate sex 05/1998 I gained 60, then lost 85 pounds. Start running again (marathons)
For me, personally, I agree with you and I think it is selfish and I would not want to stay married under those circumstances. I do feel that if Tea wants to, that's his choice. That is why I asked why he stays, his response makes me feel he is ok with it and still enjoying his M. Although, that wasn't what I took from his other posts. Am I making sense or talking in circles?
No that makes sense. I do believe that some people can find peace in a sexless marriage.
I also believe that some people cannot, and that they spend their lives trying to spackle a thin veneer over their discontent, and no matter how good they are at "act as if", I'm sure their spouses are impacted by their dissatisfaction, and that to me feels like a relationship cancer.
I did not read that The Captain is okay with it and still enjoying his M -- far from it.
I read that The Captain greatly misses having sex as part of a loving relationship, that he took great pride in his ability to please, and that he is NOT happy in a "friendly roommates" arrangement, but that *for now* the situation is not bad enough to leave.
Sometimes we say things are okay and we are just kidding ourselves or trying to convince ourselves when in fact we are not okay with it at all. I don't feel The Captain falls victim to that type of thinking, I think he is extremely self-aware and knows what he's doing, but is also very frustrated by the fact that despite his best efforts and commitment, his W will not move from what is effectively a selfish position. I also understand that having her move from no sex to duty sex would not be enough or even interesting.
In terms of ssmguy, my heart breaks reading that story because he is so far from "okay with it" but there is literally nothing he can do but leave to improve the situation, and in his case he does not see that leaving will be or could be an improvement in any way, so he is forever stuck. It frustrates me deeply because of how I would feel in that situation, but I know that it shouldn't, because it is his life and his decision and I respect that.
Acc
ACC:
You do a pretty good job of reflecting what I've written about how I feel in my marriage. Over the last couple of years I have come to accept a couple of things. First, nothing that I have said or done has or will likely move my wife from her current position. I have given her opportunities to make another choice and she hasn't taken them.
Second, that I've done just about everything except just walking away. Part of not walking away is the time investment and the fact that I do, indeed, care for and about her. But you are correct that the lack of sexual intimacy does and has had affects on the marriage relationship. But we can only guess what the sense of intimacy would be if the sex life had not gone away.
There is much more to this whole situation than meets the eye. And as SSMGuy points out, some of this doesn't show up until after the marriage. In my case, a blended family has its own issues.
There were stresses and strains that did not really show up until after we were married, after I sold my house, (that my son knew as "my house" and one that he had always had with me not shared with anyone else. He doesn't really remember a time when his mom and I were together in that house, though he does have the pictures) and moved into a new house for this new family.
There are specific incidents that did not go well in this family situation. The echoes of those times, even though the kids are grown and on their own, are still present as a distant echo. Some of those include my wife's dislike of my ex-wife (I'm not sure whether that is a good way to characterize it) that continues today.
But all of these little granular incidents can and do smear together to set mid- and longer-term trends in the relationship.
Some of these issues did appear in the 6 six years of dating but either seemed less important at the time or cropped up and seemed addressed at the time. Others, like menopause, were just beginning to show up as when we got married. In July 1992, when we got married, I could not have foreseen that in July 1999 she would have a radical hysterectomy. That there is a physical and emotional component there is something that I consider.
In 1997, could that medical situation have "driven" her loss of desire in combination with everything else?
How about that the year before, her daughter graduated high school and moved out of the house to go to college and an empty nest syndrome?
How about the tension between my wife and I over my son? Until my step-daughter's high school graduation in 1996, my wife and step-daughter had not seen my son for two years. The fact that my wife suddenly decided in 1994 that she just could not be around my son was hinted at before we got married, but it was my wife who made the declaration that if my son was at the house, that she and her daughter would not be (They'd go to a hotel or go to the beach but would be anywhere but where he and I were). That was a battle over "parenting style" and ultimately I told my ex-wife and my son that there were issues and difficulties in the marriage and that I would continue to see him on weeknights and weekends but that I thought it best that we'd not go to my new house and that battleground. Even after that there was no additional contact between my wife and son. I went to the concerts, I went to the marching band competitions and was the videographer for the marching band. (note: everything seems "normal" in that relationship and everyone involved agrees that I was and have been a wonderful father).
Or how about my diagnosis of cancer in January 1997? Did that play a role?
Or how about the loss of my job in the spring of 1997 because the company was doing away with the division I ran (we were profitable but that was an upper level management decision) and the jobs in this area and in my area of expertise had become more scarce. So there was a long job search where I finally had to throw in the towel and take a very significant pay cut. Could that have played into it?
All of that is the residual of the past.
How could I characterize this now? There were issues in the interpersonal relationships of the family and marriage that "set the stage" for the big blowup in 1997 and the complete loss of sex life at the time. Although we agreed at the time how we would handle it and deal with the situation (yes, no, or counteroffer), my wife says she regrets that we chose that particular process.
And although she has never come out and said this (yes, there is a degree of mindreading here), I don't think that she put the same weight on the answer to my question of whether there she was willing to be sexually intimate at any level or at any frequency. I asked because after nearly six months dealing with the fallout of the "no means no" event, I wasn't getting any sense of any progress on a whole range of proposals and discussions. I asked a question that I did not know the answer to and that I did not want THIS answer to. When she answered "no, I'm not willing to do that" at that time, she probably did not think that was her final answer and that I would continue to pursue and press the issue.
Then other events overtook the situation such that it really is a permanent moratorium.
And as I've investigated the statistics over the last 5 years, the thing that stands out is that 30% number of women who report a complete or very significant loss in sexual libido. Other factors in the marriage and their own personalities inform how they react to that, but that still is a very significant number. Is my wife one of those women? Probably.
Am I happy with the situation I ended up with? No. Do I accept it? Yes, begrudgingly. Its the cards are I've been dealt. I take my own experience in going through a divorce (and it wasn't a contentious divorce) in what steps I would be willing to take towards that as a different path. It is a survivable event. But there is no guarantee beyond survival.
The Captain
Last sex: 04/06/1997 Last attempt: 11/11/1997 W Issues "No Means No" Declaration: 11/11/1997 W chooses to terminate sex 05/1998 I gained 60, then lost 85 pounds. Start running again (marathons)
I think Michelle's quote sums this thread up nicely:
Originally Posted By: MWD
...the person with the lower sex drive controls the sexual relationship, not out of a need to manipulate or control, but because they have veto power. If they're not in the mood, it doesn't happen. There's an unspoken agreement: the person with the lower desire expects his or her spouse to accept it, not complain about it, and also to be monogamous. In my years in working with couples, that's pretty much an unfair and unworkable arrangement.
Married 18, Together 20, Now Divorced M: 48, W: 50, D: 18, S: 16, D: 12 Bomb Dropped (EA, D): 7/13/11 Start Reconcile: 8/15/11 Bomb Dropped (EA, D): 5/1/2014 (Divorced) In a New Relationship: 3/2015
I think Michelle's quote sums this thread up nicely:
Yes, the lower drive person has veto power. But likewise, the higher drive person can veto monogamy. In a real sense, no person can control their spouse's behavior.
So I find it interesting that the general assumption behind MWD's statement is essentially that it is considered a greater wrong to go outside the marriage for sex when your spouse has shut you off than it is to shut off your spouse.
That is, it is more virtuous to be celibate when your spouse does not consent to it than it is to have sex when your spouse does not consent to. Somehow seems to be a reflection of American puritanism.
"That is, it is more virtuous to be celibate when your spouse does not consent to it than it is to have sex when your spouse does not consent to. Somehow seems to be a reflection of American puritanism."
Um no. It's called marriage. It has nothing to do with "American puritanism". Usually when you are in a marriage (in the majority of cultures) you stick with that one person. In the Middle East you could even get stoned to death for it. It's not an American thing. Some go into open marriages which is a choice.
Bottom line is that if sex isn't a big thing for one spouse, it is up to the other to determine if they can live with it or not. It's an individual choice.
M-43 W-40 2D - 9 and 5
Emotion, yet peace. Ignorance, yet knowledge. Passion, yet serenity. Chaos, yet harmony. Death, yet a new life.
You're right, it's not uniquely American. But it's more American than French, for example.
I was amused by a commentary I read about French and American statistics on affairs. The frequency is about the same in both cultures. But the difference is that Americans feel more guilty about it.
MrBond, my question is what is the source of the assumption that "sticking with that one person" is a stronger "vow" than being a sexual partner to your spouse? In some cultures and times the husband has/had the right to physically punish his wife for refusing sex, etc. So what? I'm talking about marriage in America.
It seems to me that cheating on one's spouse and shutting off one's spouse are about the same level of breaking one's vows. Both are grounds for divorce, and both result in divorce in practice. I'm still not sure how you draw your distinction. Just calling it marriage is a circular answer. So what comes to my mind is the American attitude which tends a little more toward sexlessness as being more "pure" than active sex. Just my impression when compared with France, etc.
