HP opined: "Wife, in order for me to continue to be in love with you I need you to think about including affection and frequent sex in our lives." ___________________
I think this is a point that many LDs miss. The lack of sexual connection causes love to die in the HD. I don't know that it works the same for LDs. (How's that for a "them v. us" generality?) Seriously though, LDS identify many (read: most) other things as creating and maintaining a loving R rather than sex. (The priority of sex rates below gardening w/many W, according to one poll.)
A LD would probably hear, "to continue to be in love with you" as an admission that you never were in love w/them, because if you were, not having sex couldn't kill it. Could this be the foundation of the "you just want sex" v. "loving me" argument?
Schnarch speaks of a healthy M containing a level of mutually agreed upon fusion, as I recall, although not in those terms. I think the best M would be w/both S understanding each other's "needs" (either real or perceived) and desiring to meet them in every possible way.
I "need" my W to want me, but someone else might argue that it's just a "want". In my thinking, I'm not fused, because I know how to HOM if she doesn't. I'm not looking for validation, I'm looking for us to be healthier together. And we are healthiest if she does. And we both know it. And isn't a healtier M what we are all shooting for? Isn't that why we're here instead of spending our computer time having affairs?
