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?
Quote barneyfife "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 find this myself Mike. My own take on it is that different emotions are involved and stay separate. It took me a couple of weeks to fall in love with my W (I asked her to marry me after only three weeks) and those loving feelings have never left me or indeed, diminished. The lack of sexual connection causes other emotions; frustration, longing, neediness etc. to enter the mix but the background love remains the same. SD
I agree with SD. The lack of sex in no way diminishes my love for my W. It just engenders those bad feelings he listed: frustration, longing, neediness etc. In fact, the lack of sex would be a lot less painful if my love for her would diminish.
Quote wb "In fact, the lack of sex would be a lot less painful if my love for her would diminish."
We're on the same wavelength wb. It is the undying unconditional love that keeps our marriages from falling apart. More LM may not actually increase the love by much but will certainly increase the happiness. SD - feeling good today.
"Wanting" sex is good. "Needing" sex is pathetic. "Wanting" sex with your wife is great. "Needing to sex to love your wife" is, while not supremely righteous, is a valid thing that should be expressed to her.
Needs are ok if they are part of contingency of the feelings you have towards someone. When you think you "need" something in a vacuum, then your motivation is for other-validation or other-soothing...which aren't valid. Train yourself to invalidate these thoughts, and your true feelings for your spouse will present themself to you instead of this confusion that you love your W because she holds the keys to your validation and soothing. It's the same mechanism that causes hostages to feel a connection to their captors.
Fix your thinking and you will fix the problem.
Anywhere is walking distance if you have the time
-Steven Wright
Atl, Quote "Fix your thinking and you will fix the problem." This sounds to me like "Fix your thinking and you will be better able to cope with the problem." SD - Yes I'm still fused
I don't mind the sun sometime
The images it shows
I can taste you on my lips
And smell you in my clothes
Cinnamon and Sugar
And softly spoken lies
You never know just how you look
Through someone elses eyes
BHS-"Pepper"
Quote: It's the same mechanism that causes hostages to feel a connection to their captors.
This is so true! For instance, after my H would reject me sexually I would often cry and look to him for comfort. This would cause him to feel cr*ppy about himself and question my mental health. He would say "This is perverse. How do you expect me to comfort you when I know that I'm the one who caused you to be hurt?" His only choices were to feel like a jerk or ignore my pain as unjustified. If you act like a wimp or a masochist, your spouse is going to be unhappy because you've automatically cast them in the role of bully or sadist.
"Tell me, what is it you plan to do with your one wild and precious life?" - Mary Oliver
I gotta wholeheartedly disagree that "needing sex is pathetic!" We are first and foremost biological creatures... animals. Our only indisputable "purpose" here on planet Earth is... no, not to DB... to procreate! Nature does not care what else we do, so long as we procreate... preferably, like bunnies, with whomever will lie still long enough for us to procreate with. This is a major reason the D rate is so high, because our cherished monogamy is unfortunately NOT in keeping with our biologic imperatives... hence one reason we engage in "serial monogamy" and not the real deal.
Sex is an instinctual DRIVE. As humans, we are biologically hard-wired to perceive it as a MAJOR "need" in order to insure the survival of our species. Whether or not our warped species deserves to survive is, of course, a matter of legitimate debate.
Sure, because of the grey matter on our brains, unlike other animals we can sometimes totally repress or sublimate the energy (libido) that is designed to be used for sex, if we so choose. But in my opinion, doing that for long periods, without really wanting to is... well, pathetic. Because it's an invalidation of our human nature.
"Needing in a vacuum" seems fine to me, as does "other validation" and "other soothing." Again, this is primal stuff. As a culture, in our pathologic fear of "co-dependence" we have gone WAY overboard in insisting upon an unrealistic and (I think) unhealthy level of self reliance.
Needs are not bad, in my opinion. To boil all "needs" down to mere "wants" makes for a rather tepid existence, does it not?
Annalise, the main thing that differentiates us from all other animals is the structure of our brains. We have a neocortex, no other animal does. This difference does many things for us, but one thing it does is removes sex from the realm of the merely instinctual and drive-based. We are no longer creatures who breed when "in heat", but we can bring our tremendous creativity and ingenuity to lovemaking in a way no other animal can. Therefore, for us, sex is not just about procreation, and it is also most definitely NOT a mere physical "need", like hunger. The reason the D rate is so high and people practice serial monogamy is that most people don't understand how marriage actually works, and they bail at the first sign of conflict. Many, many people who get divorced COULD learn to work through their problems, and avoid D, but they either don't learn what they need to in time, or they just don't care enough. The prevalence of serial monogamy in today's society does NOT mean that REAL monogamy isn't workable... it simply tells us something very unflattering about our present society...
