How can you stop your sex drive? THere are guys on here that have actually looked to drugs to try and kill it. I have no clue as to how you can stop it. It is there at all times. Heck, if you are around females, how can you NOT desire. I work hard to NOT desire other women and keep it focused on my wife. Sex, affection, it is freaking EVERYWHERE. It's at work, it's at the mall, it's in the media, it's at the rec center, it's on the street, it's at the kids soccer and football games. And maybe the worst place of all, CHURCH! Ladies dressed to the hilt, some very sexily, and couples sitting VERY close togehter. How can you NOT think about sex.
When it comes to sex, both HD and LD seem to be insisting that the only good sex *has* to come from "feelings". The HD wants the LD to feel *desire* and *express* that desire in the way the HD perceives desire. The LD spouses is doing exactly the same thing - "I must *feel* desire before I can express myself sexually." So, if they don't *feel* it, it doesn't occur. The horrible irony of it is that HD and LD are looking at sex the exact same way.
So, once the LD isn't feeling the desire (and you're supposed to feel desire in order to want/have sex), then what are they supposed to do? As long as everyone is waiting for the desire fairy to show up, the sex life is going to come to a halt. And as long as that feeling of desire is the goal - and the LD spouse can't manufacture it, you will get the "that's just the way I am" defense.
This is just the Catch 22 I have been wrestling with (in addition to many other issues). It is where many couples seem to get stuck – that negative feedback loop which only requires validation from your spouse to break it. The answer is so simple yet so difficult to put in place. For me, it first required jumping through all the other power plays until giving each other what they wanted was the only solution left, short of D.
Have you ever had a completely unsatisfying sexual encounter? Unsatisfying, btw, can be on any level... I'm not just saying you have to O to have a satisfying encounter. Uhm, I'll answer 'yes' for you.
When we have repeated 'unsatisfying' sexual encounters... or any encounter that isn't really 'satisfying' us... our desire for that thing or encounter dries up.
You, for example, have no 'desire' to have sex with a woman who does not 'desire' you in return. That doesn't mean you don't experience a physical urge for sex.
In my current state of singlehood... I certainly experience physical desire to have sex... horniness, if you will... and I could, I'm sure... have lots and lots of sex... with a variety of people, I'm sure, to scratch that itch.
But my 'desire' to have sex with 'just anybody,' is extremely low. It would make my physical encounters... with 'just anyone,' very unsatisfying.
Quote: Well, what if we all agreed that there are different reasons for making love rather than insisting that the only sex life that counts is one where both individuals are experiencing sexual desire at the same level and in the same way?
If only it were so simple. It's not a question of "agreeing" for me, MrsNOP. It's a question of how I'm WIRED. Many of us do not enjoy sex with someone who's just "agreeing" to do it with you, especially when that is so much different than how they were earlier in the relationship, and the things that attracted you to them in the first place.
Mrs. Choc.: "Choc., can't we just agree that there are different reasons for making love rather than insisting that the only sex life that counts is one where we both are experiencing sexual desire at the same level and in the same way?"
Choc.: "Um, no."
Different levels? Sure. If my wife wants to ML 1x/week and I want to ML 5x/week, and we can agree on 2-3x/week, sure.
Different times? Sure. If it's "I'd really love to honey, and the last time was great, but I'm just not feeling it tonite -- I'm really tired. How about we try again tomorrow?" I'm good with that, especially if she initiates it the next night.
Different ways?? Hmmm. If by that you mean "Honey, I really love you, more than anything in the world, but although I know your love language is 'physical touch', mine is 'acts of service. So here, I've washed your car for you."
Quote: If only it were so simple. It's not a question of "agreeing" for me, MrsNOP. It's a question of how I'm WIRED. Many of us do not enjoy sex with someone who's just "agreeing" to do it with you, especially when that is so much different than how they were earlier in the relationship, and the things that attracted you to them in the first place.
Mrs. Choc.: "Choc., can't we just agree that there are different reasons for making love rather than insisting that the only sex life that counts is one where we both are experiencing sexual desire at the same level and in the same way?"
Choc.: "Um, no."
Different levels? Sure. If my wife wants to ML 1x/week and I want to ML 5x/week, and we can agree on 2-3x/week, sure.
Different times? Sure. If it's "I'd really love to honey, and the last time was great, but I'm just not feeling it tonite -- I'm really tired. How about we try again tomorrow?" I'm good with that, especially if she initiates it the next night.
Different ways?? Hmmm. If by that you mean "Honey, I really love you, more than anything in the world, but although I know your love language is 'physical touch', mine is 'acts of service. So here, I've washed your car for you."
I'm not so sure I'm okay with that.
We're talking two different things. It sounds like you're thinking of the "lay here and think of England" type of agreement. And I'm thinking of "this is someone I love - someone I enjoy being with, let's go have a good time" type.
Quote: Mrs. Choc.: "Choc., can't we just agree that there are different reasons for making love rather than insisting that the only sex life that counts is one where we both are experiencing sexual desire at the same level and in the same way?"
Choc.: "Um, no."
Sexual drives are different and it's obvious that they can and do change. I think the stance reflected in the quote above leaves you and your wife in an impossible position.
Do you think that two people can't have a rip-roaring good time sexually (and/or a gentle sweet tender good time) with each other without having equivalent drives?
Would the above be acceptable to you?
Because I can tell you from my experience that they can.
It may mean that you might have to have less than satisfactory sex for a time while the lower drive spouse works through a few things. Is that something that you could tolerate?
Quote: Sexual drives are different and it's obvious that they can and do change. I think the stance reflected in the quote above leaves you and your wife in an impossible position.
Do you think that two people can't have a rip-roaring good time sexually (and/or a gentle sweet tender good time) with each other without having equivalent drives?
Would the above be acceptable to you?
Because I can tell you from my experience that they can.
It may mean that you might have to have less than satisfactory sex for a time while the lower drive spouse works through a few things. Is that something that you could tolerate?
MrsNOP -
Yes, absolutely. As long as I saw my wife working at it, and that it was important to her to try and help me be happy, I would work with her for as long as it took. My complaint with the fetching Mrs. Choc. is that she neither works at it, nor even indicates that she even thinks it's important for our marriage to do so.
Blackie, If you define desire as your sex drive as it comes from the heart (iow, wanting to get it on with *that* person instead of just wanting to get it on with their body) then it's easy to see why yours is gone. Your heart is broken and when it begins to heal, I suspect that some lucky lucky lady will find herself the recipient of your horniness/desire/attraction/attention. Until then, I imagine it will be lots of itch scratchin.
Quote: Yes, absolutely. As long as I saw my wife working at it, and that it was important to her to try and help me be happy, I would work with her for as long as it took. My complaint with the fetching Mrs. Choc. is that she neither works at it, nor even indicates that she even thinks it's important for our marriage to do so.
Choc, I was reflecting on an earlier convo you and I had in regard to telling your spouse about how you deeply you were hurting. I had asked if your wife was aware of how hurt you were. You had said that she had walked by and saw you crying and very emotionally broken and she responded to that initially. But, it was temporary.
I know that seeing some expression of NOP's pain was what started breaking through to me. But our relational dynamics were/are different from yours. NOP's expressing emotional pain was literally a 180 from his normal expressed personality. Since you have described yourself as a romantic and I think you are given toward being more emotionally expressive (and IIRC you are a conflict-avoider), I wonder if your wife wouldn't be more responsive to something of a 180 on your part? An assertive Choc? A Choc who stands up for himself and his needs in his marriage. Not leaning toward obsequiousness? I know you dislike pushing in this way, and if I read it correctly your feelings are hurt that you have to push at all.
I know it would be nice if our spouses responded to our pain in a kind and understanding way, but in long-term relationships I think you can reach a place where the other person's pain (especially if alluded to or outright expressed) can lead to a form of "emotional receptor burnout". To the point that ongoing emotional expressions are responded to with sarcasm and distaste. So, a different approach can sometimes be much more noticeable and effective.
Secondly, after a time of doing the right things (you know the drill - patience, kindness, involvement in family/home, being the best husband/wife that you can be on a regular basis - that it's time to let life & routine as our spouse has known it to come to an end. At some point, what you are contributing to the relationship may need to be withheld in the hopes of getting your spouse to notice that things are not going to continue under the status quo any longer.
Are you going to choose to continue with things as is until ? I read a lot on another forum that deals with divorce and I see men and women who are crushed after 15 - 20 years of marriage when their spouse (who hasn't fully participated in the marriage) decide that they are going to move on to greener pastures. I think we tend to think that the spouse who has been the most neglected is the one who will leave - I don't think that's true. It is very often the spouse who has already lived a life of relational self-centeredness who finds it easier to cut the marital ties.
Off another segue, I understand men hesitating to file (or even rattle the marital cage), because the fact is men get the short end of the stick when it comes to divorce. If I was currently rearing a son, I would push for him to get a prenup before marriage. In a marriage that is rocky and the children were all in school, I would insist that the SAHM get a job as soon as the baby started kindergarten.
In an attempt to tie some of the loose ends together, I think advocating for yourself is a requisite in marriage. Hopefully waiting for our spouse to come to their senses and suddenly start advocating for us (without us having to speak up for ourselves) is a romantisized pipedream. Life just isn't that easy.
Quote: I think we tend to think that the spouse who has been the most neglected is the one who will leave - I don't think that's true. It is very often the spouse who has already lived a life of relational self-centeredness who finds it easier to cut the marital ties.
I think I need to challenge this assertation a bit. It's a little too generalized for my likiing... there are all kinds of reasons for a D, some good, some not so good. I suppose it could be easily labeled as a self-centered act to get out of an M... and our society tends to view self-centeredness as 'selfish.' Like selflessness should be the preferred route.
Selflessness is not always a good thing. We can allow all kinds of crap to happen to us that one should never tolerate in the name of selflessness.... most people who avoid conflict would call themselves selfless.
I think a very solid sense of self -- of one's needs, and a willingness to define, articulate, and defend those needs -- is a critical contribution to the foundation of any successful R. And if one is willing to leave an R in order to honor that sense of self, I guess I don't necessarily see that as selfish. IMHO.
Choc won't leave, at least right now, because he feels a sense of duty and obligation to his family. That is how he defines himself. I see this as self-centered.... but not in a bad way. This is at the center of Who He Is.
What I do see as the potential underlying problem with BOTH he and Mrs. Choc., is their lack of willingness to be radically honest with one another. It sounds like they are both avoiding the R to get by. This, I could say, is 'selfless.' But I don't necessarily see that this type of selflessness is in the best interest of anyone.
BOTH spouses are being neglected and neglecful. BOTH spouses are being 'selfless.' IMHO, one of them is eventually going to regain their sense of self, and either take things to the mat or leave.
I think we tend to think that the spouse who has been the most neglected is the one who will leave - I don't think that's true. It is very often the spouse who has already lived a life of relational self-centeredness who finds it easier to cut the marital ties.
I think I need to challenge this assertation a bit. It's a little too generalized for my likiing... there are all kinds of reasons for a D, some good, some not so good. I suppose it could be easily labeled as a self-centered act to get out of an M... and our society tends to view self-centeredness as 'selfish.' Like selflessness should be the preferred route.
I agree that there are many different reasons for divorcing. Some are downright mandatory from my viewpoint.
When I am describing self-centeredness in a marriage, I'm abscribing that towards the spouse who refuses to work on things at all. The spouse who will not or cannot see that *they* are contributors to the problem. The spouse who keeps telling the other "you're the one with the problem" without there being any attempt to take some responsibility on their own behalf.
The latest scenario that epitomizes this to me is that I've been reading a man's thread on another forum. He has been dealing with an ongoing SSM. He admits to and has been going to counseling to deal with his issues that have contributed to the problem. He's been trying to get his wife to work with him for almost 3 years (they've been married 6) on this marriage. He puts in 12- 14 hours a day (something they had both agreed upon in order to achieve certain goals), he comes home and does housework, they purchase/do whatever major household project she has ever wanted (the last one was a huge deck and patio in which he was supposed to get a fancy grill - she reneged on the grill once the deck was built), he lost weight and became an tri-athlete and got on a cpap machine (she still wouldn't sleep in the same room with him although his breathing problem had been the original complaint), she controls the finances, and he recently discovered that she had struck back up with a former boyfriend. Now she's the one divorcing him, kicking him out of their house, insisting on full custody and alimony and is hinting that he might get hit with a restraining order for possible violence.
Whew. That was long winded.
When I see spouses making good faith efforts to reconcile the issues in the marriage and who don't receive any (or very little) reciprocity - that spouse who refuses to participate is who I am labeling self-centered.
You don't fall into that category at all, Corri. You've busted your butt for the past 3 or more years. You took responsibility and recognized that there were things you could work on.
The spouse who keeps trying to work it out is (IMO) much more emotionally invested in the marriage. The spouse who is choosing not to participate, not to acknowledge their own culpability aren't as emotionally invested and may find it easier to step outside the marriage and/or file for divorce. But they darn sure aren't making any concerted effort to make the existing marriage better for both spouses.
