Quote: But JJ, I'd still like to hear the details of your attitude change. I want to learn from you.
I think I've probably over-emphasized my attitude change as being critical to the improvement in my situation. It's just what I'm thinking about now because that's the phase I went through most recently. I am doing the "newbies" on the BB a disservice if I give the impression that a change in attitude on the part of the HD partner is all that is necessary. I would say that it is necessary but not sufficient. You still have to work towards resolving the problem with your spouse. I'm just saying that the more reasonable your attitude is in addressing the issue, the more chance you have of resolving the problem in a practical sense and the more room you leave for your partner to actually desire to solve the problem for themselves.
Here is the analogy I've been thinking about lately. There are two HD guys. They court and marry two women. Things are great or at least good or at least hopeful during the courtship and honeymoon phase but then things go downhill. The usual disenchantment and revelation phase occurs. In one marriage, the husband is upset because after the birth of their first child his wife's libido plummeted and became non-existent after the birth of the second. In the second marriage, the husband is upset because after the first child was born his wife gained 75 lbs. and then she gained another 100 lbs. after the birth of the second.
I would suggest that husband #1 would be best off if he would view and react to his wife's libido problem in the same common sense way that husband #2 might view and react to his wife's problem with obesity. Of course, when I say this I am making the assumption that in the case of obesity the husband would be better able to not take it personally, see through or deflect his wife's defense mechanisms and be more accepting of the fact that his wife may never put as high a value on physical appearance as he does and may never be as thin as he might prefer. It might be easier for the husband of the obese wife to see that nagging his wife about her weight or trying to be her pro-active diet coach could be counter-productive. If this husband was smart, he wouldn't go looking for hidden cookie wrappers in the car, wouldn't give his wife dirty looks as she tried to smush into too tight jeans and also wouldn't buy her a dozen roses and sing her praises any time she lost 20 lbs..
However, both husband's would be stuck with a similar dilemma if they came to believe that the situation would never change. They would have to ask themselves "Should I leave? Is it alright for me to leave simply because my wife only wants to have sex twice a year or because my wife weighs 325 lbs.?". It becomes a moral issue that depends on the individual involved and other circumstances such as religion, children, money, community etc.
If I apply the analogy to my situation, I would say that my change of attitude is the equivalent of the guy with the obese wife realizing that he's really okay, happy with a wife who is 50 lbs. overweight and making an effort for some combination of her own good and the good of the relationship.
"Tell me, what is it you plan to do with your one wild and precious life?" - Mary Oliver
Thanks, mojo. So what I said above is basically true
Quote: Tell me if I'm getting this correct: You realized that your initiating sex a lot and seeking evidence that your H is/was LD was counterproductive, i.e., wasn't getting you any more sex and was putting both of you in a bad mood. So you convinced yourself that not having as much sex as you used to want is okay. You wait for your H to initiate, and he does often enough that you're content with the sitch. Is this right?
Hey Journey, I love reading about the research Helen Fisher does. I've got one of books and am always pleased to see her on programs on relations between the sexes and sex research. She does a great job of tyring to understand how what goes on in the body effects the brain and therefore our behavior.
Always fascinating, thanks for finding that.
Scott
"Satisfaction is not guaranteed." Rule #19 Ferengi "Rules of Acquistition"
Quote: Tell me if I'm getting this correct: You realized that your initiating sex a lot and seeking evidence that your H is/was LD was counterproductive, i.e., wasn't getting you any more sex and was putting both of you in a bad mood. So you convinced yourself that not having as much sex as you used to want is okay. You wait for your H to initiate, and he does often enough that you're content with the sitch. Is this right?
Geesh, why do you have to be so literal? Just kiddin'.
Most (all?) of the couples on the BB who feel like they have successfully resolved this issue have come to some sort of agreement with their spouse on the issue. The agreement that my H and I have come to is that I don't initiate sex and he will make an effort to initiate on a regular basis. At first, I wasn't thrilled with this arrangement because my role was so passive but then I realized that actually I did have an active role in the arrangement because my H's efforts were in response to my basic stand on the issue which is "If we don't have sex on a regular basis, I will probably hang out for a few years and be friendly until the kids leave home but there is a good chance that I will leave at that point.". Since he sees my attempts at initiation as a form of nagging about something that he clearly understands it is counter-productive. If I were to be in a mindset where I was able to sort of spontaneously initiate sex without any feeling that I was doing it because he wasn't initiating enough then I would initiate sex. However, I believe that this sort of initiation of sex is pretty much the same thing as two people simultaneously initiating sex so I don't know if it will ever happen.
"Tell me, what is it you plan to do with your one wild and precious life?" - Mary Oliver
Thank you thank you thank you... this is so totally clear FINALLY... wonder why it was so hard to get you to stop beating around the bush (so to speak) and just say it (not that I don't love metaphors-- I DO).
Quote: The agreement that my H and I have come to is that I don't initiate sex and he will make an effort to initiate on a regular basis. ...
Since he sees my attempts at initiation as a form of nagging .....
If I were to be in a mindset where I was able to sort of spontaneously initiate sex without any feeling that I was doing it because he wasn't initiating enough then I would initiate sex.
My hat is off to you for working this out. It seems to me that this is far far from General Mojo... and I'm so glad it's working for you.
I am assuming that if you stopped initiating, and he never initiated, you would leave him sooner or later, and NOT just carry your new approach to the extreme of deciding that you could do without sex all together? I mean, you don't like him all THAT much, do you?
Quote: I am assuming that if you stopped initiating, and he never initiated, you would leave him sooner or later, and NOT just carry your new approach to the extreme of deciding that you could do without sex all together? I mean, you don't like him all THAT much, do you?
The relevant question wouldn't be "Would you leave him?". It would be "Why hasn't he left?". Clearly, he must be having some pretty negative thoughts about me, our relationship or at least my sex drive in order to justify such relationship damaging behavior so "Why hasn't he left?".
Take an example of extreme practical and emotional fusion and dependence partially based on the genre of the romance novel . A very rich man is married to a woman without any prospects for earning money. He feels like he is madly in love with her and passionately desires her sexually. She feels oppressed by his overwhelming attentions and trapped by her own inability to earn a living. When he is miserable he cries out "Your lack of desire for me is killing me but if you leave my life will be worthless and I will throw myself from a bridge.". When he is angry he cries out "I am your only support. If you leave me you will be left penniless on the street with no friends.".
Compare and contrast with a more successful romance plot. A very rich HD man marries a penniless LD woman. They don't know each other very well when they marry and he is somewhat dismayed to discover that she is not inclined to appreciate the pleasures of the bedroom. However, he has never been one to force his attentions on a woman who is neither willing nor wanting but he knows himself to be a lusty man not able to go long without sexual pleasure without serious damage to his temperament. So he approaches his bride who is now pregnant with his heir due to one of their early unsuccessful encounters and tells her "I will no longer oppress you with any of my manly attentions. I don't want you to feel dependent upon me so I shall settle a large allowance upon you which you can use as you wish. I will make every effort to be a good father to our unborn child. However, I do have needs like any man so I will seek to satisfy them elsewhere with all possible discretion. I would ask the same discretion of you if it is the case that you have these same hungers and I am simply not to your taste."
Which romantic hero is more likely to get laid by a heroine who really desires him? The one who seeks to bind the heroine more tightly to the relationship through pity and fear or the one who seeks to grant the heroine as much freedom as possible within the relationship given the circumstances?
"Tell me, what is it you plan to do with your one wild and precious life?" - Mary Oliver
I don't see this as "why hasn't he left".....I do see this as why haven't you...just as Lil asked. To me...turning it around to why he hasn't left is avoiding answering the question.
Quote: I don't see this as "why hasn't he left".....I do see this as why haven't you...just as Lil asked. To me...turning it around to why he hasn't left is avoiding answering the question.
Okay, I know this might just seem like a difference in semantics but my answer would be I wouldn't leave but I would let him go or even help him leave. I guess the difference in my mind is that if I am thinking "You haven't had sex with me in 6 monthes so I am leaving you!" I would be feeling angry. If I am feeling angry when a relationship ends then this is IMO a reflection of the extent to which I am not differentiated or had an unhealthy dependency on the relationship. I mean I think it is true that you tend to end up married to someone who is at your same level of differentiation, but it is possible for a short period of time to be married to someone and be at a higher level of differentiation. For instance, when you say in a friendly way "Clearly, this isn't working. We haven't had sex in 6 monthes. Would you like me to help you find an apartment?".
"Tell me, what is it you plan to do with your one wild and precious life?" - Mary Oliver
GEL, thanks so much for also not "getting" that story. For a sec, I thought I was losing my mind.
Mojo, I get your explanation of the story totally. The fact is that if neither person of a couple is reaching out for sex, AND neither person cares whether they ever have sex again, then it is time to move on.
The stance I'm taking these days is that my feeling of not "feeling loved" (which is not the same as not BEING loved, because I know he loves me) begins and ends entirely within me. I know this is true, because most of my life, I have not "felt loved." In the beginning of a R where you dote on each other, I have felt loved for a shor time (months or years). I feel loved because I have finally "gotten the guy." I feel worthwhile, special, chosen. But eventually, I cease to feel loved, even when the guy is still interested in sex.
In this particular relationship, my not feeling loved is hinged on, or hangs on, or is connected to lack of sex. But in the past in other Rs, it was due to the guy's being at work all the time, or the health issues, or... well... that he wouldn't divorce his wife and marry me. See what I mean? In all these cases, I KNEW the man loved me, but I didn't FEEL loved. I can find a way to NOT feel loved. That is my particular pathology.
I am now taking responsibility for how I feel, and not making that feeling a result of how he treats me or how he acts toward me or what he does or doesn't do. Because I KNOW he loves me. In fact, the lack of sex issue forces me to confront my own lack of self love.
I firmly believe that if we were having sex all the time, I would still find some way of not feeling loved by him. When he was drinking, I used to say if he would just stop drinking, that would solve everything. Now it's the sex. But if we started having lots of sex (which we could do if I would initiate all the time), something else would turn up as an issue. The fact is that the basic issue is IN ME.
When I can resolve INTERNALLY the issue of not feeling loved (and its sidekick "nobody wants me"), what is going on OUTSIDE me will cease to be an issue. This will happen in one of several ways, I will "feel" loved no matter what he does or doesn't do, he will start acting more physically loving and sexy for no apparent reason, he will leave on his own, we will both drift away from each other.
I think this approach is pretty similar to what you're doing/have done, with more embellishing explanation.
Thanks for hanging in and explaining this. I've learned a LOT.
