Excellent statement, CNumb: The issue is, at least for this HD spouse, the need to feel desired by my wife. I feel that desire best when she actively participates in ML to me, when she occasionally initiates it, when she is playful and when she is actively pursuing me.
I'd like to add: "when she, more often than not, accepts my initiation of ML willingly, and sometimes, enthusiastically."
Women want men to lead the relationship (what "leading" entails is a topic for another thread).
Ok, would love to hear what this is exactly if you want to start another thread. I guess to me the problem with LD relationships is that the HD ALWAYS LEADS. If one person leads, the other person never can express "DESIRE". "Desire" requires initiation does it not?
Ok, would love to hear what this is exactly if you want to start another thread. I guess to me the problem with LD relationships is that the HD ALWAYS LEADS. If one person leads, the other person never can express "DESIRE". "Desire" requires initiation does it not?
I think using the term "lead" is not quite right. IMO, it could encourage male behavior that is more paternalistic than straight-forwardly masculine. The two are not the same. Let's say the woman is the cow and the man is the rancher. Let's say the rancher's goal is to keep the cow on the ranch happily supplying him with milk. Many men make the mistake (IMO) of thinking the way to take charge or control the situation is to concentrate on controlling the cow. This leads to either placating (giving the cow a carrot)or paternalistic (giving the cow the stick) behavior. Instead the rancher needs to concentrate on the fence. The fence being his own self-esteem vis a vis masculinity. Of course, in this analogy the cow's milk represents sex or whatever other form of value or validation that makes the rancher feel more masculine because it's coming from a female.
For example, let's say you did something masculine that you hoped that you wife would admire, like maybe scoring the winning goal at the soccer match, or getting a raise at work or chopping a pile of wood. That admiration would be milk for you just like getting a great BJ would be milk for you. Milk is what you "desire".
"Tell me, what is it you plan to do with your one wild and precious life?" - Mary Oliver
The thing I find most unappealing about your posts, and typcially why I avoid responding to you anymore, is I can well imagine that if you found a 'pill' that is guaranteed to change your wife into an HD woman, who desires you all the time, you'd buy it, slip it into her drink without her being aware, and start having the time of your life in the sack. She'd never be the wiser, and you'd move on with life.
You seem to be looking for THE FORMULA that works in getting your wife to change. You will apply it, to the letter, as long as you get your desired outcome. Kinda takes the other person completely out of the equation, doesn't it?
As a woman on the receiving end of that attitude, especially if she views divorce as a non-option as you do, I'd give up the game myself. Perhaps this is what you are actually experiencing. She's given up.
You certainly cannot make another feel desire... for anything, including sex. That comes from within. I guess that is why everyone is on you about becoming someone who is worth being desired. You aren't getting the sex you want anyway... so why not take the time you have, and make YOU the best YOU can be?
If you are fine with Who You Are, exactly as you are, then I'd say to you, 'why are you griping?' Obviously, you are not happy. That does NOT attract a 'happy' person to you.
All the 'leading' in the world won't get you what you want from another, if you are simply 'leading' to get something from the person you are leading. I'm getting this whole scenario view in my head of some guy coaxing a kid to get into his car for the lollipop. Ewh.
When you get as far down on the unhappiness scale as you have, it is hard to find your hope, and your light at the end of the tunnel. I'm wondering if you might not be depressed yourself? Have you thought, maybe, of seeing your own doctor? It may help you climb out of the hole you seem to be in. Problem is, when you are in that hole, it's hard to see it, it's hard to think rationally or logically, and hence, many people don't seek out the help they really need to climb out.
I'm sorry for you, dear man. I'll keep my fingers crossed for you, though.
Thank you so much for writing what I was thinking but couldn't state as eloquently as you did.
My issue with responding to Cemar is a personal one in that I "hear" my friend's xH in what he is saying and react to it. The other issues in their marriages may be different but this part is similar. The H made it clear over and over that his wife was not giving him what he wanted, didn't desire him the way he wanted AND because of wife he was not happy and not secure. But the funny thing is that the wife did desire him and adore him. So where was the breakdown?? Obviously they BOTH contributed to the problem. My friend was willing and DID accept her responsibility. That was the sad thing was to listen to her as she went through personal counseling and really WORKED on herself. The issue that broke their marriage, IMHO, was that in the end the H laid ALL the blame at my friend's feet. Because EVERYTHING she did was a problem, even when she "improved" in one area, the H would then focus on another. He also accepted almost no blame except stating that he had always done too much for her (and yes in marriage counseling that was the only mistake he said he had made). Please remember that this H is (was?) a very good friend of mine also and I care for him also. It was just frustrating talking with him because he blamed his wife for everything. Believe me that if she had blamed him for everything I would feel the same way about her.
I had written a much longer post that I didn't post here because I don't feel like it would have been read in the right context. I'll probably post it on Burgbud's thread when I get around to it because I think it fits better with his topic. However one of the comments I made about Cemar was the fact that he hasn't clearly stated his goal as far as I know. He says that he cannot be happy in the relationship so the only thing left is to do something that he doesn't want to do – divorce his wife. How is that not abdicating control of your own life? So someone else makes you go against your own principles? It doesn't make sense to me. If your goal is to keep your marriage together then start looking at what you can do and let go of what you have no control over. If your goal is to have your wife change and love you the way you want or else you are going to leave, fine. Tell her that explicitly and see what happens. Deraven and I had this talk recently about his xW. Yes she had told him she was unhappy about the marriage but she never told him that she was ready to leave until the minute she left. You can argue all you want about whether he "should have" known but in my mind unless you make it clear to your spouse exactly what you want and the CONSEQUENCES of what will happen if you don't get it then I don't think you gave your spouse or marriage a fair shot. But, and I may be cynical, I think that is the EXACT purpose of not explicitly stating what you want. That way you can leave feeling like they should have known what you needed but never really give them a chance to make the changes. Or maybe you told them what was wrong but never really explained how problematic it is. Deraven's xW still harasses him with this kind of stuff a year and a half after she remarried. She still has to stress to him that leaving him wasn't what she wanted but that she was FORCED into by him. Is Cemar treating his wife any differently? Does his wife clearly know how Cemar feels? If she does, has she clearly decided that she doesn't want to meet his needs AND she is willing to let him walk out on her? Just wondering.
At the same time realize that as soon as you tell your spouse explicitly what you want, it will be a very difficult change for them. For my personality, when I was making the changes my H said he wanted, it was very stressful especially when I had backslides (which are natural but frustrating just the same). And at the same time you had better be honest with yourself that those ARE the exact changes you want someone to make. I know for my xH as soon as I started making all of the changes he "wanted", magically other issues kept coming up, one by one. Which in hindsight points to the larger issue, he wasn't truly happy within himself and that is why no matter what I did, it was never enough to change how he felt. It was the same thing with my friend and her xH and with the majority of walkaways in my opinion.
And finally this is how it ties back into this thread's title - Deida's The way of the superior man. I haven't read the book yet but from what I've picked up from the posts it is very much about a man establishing his happiness and sense of self worth from himself and not from his wife.
But what is happiness except the simple harmony between a man and the life he leads? ~Albert Camus
I feel the same way about Cemars sitch. Once before when he was talking about 'eyes wide open' orgasm's being necessary, when it seems that there is very little intimacy between them. She will also have sex with him whenever he wants.
It just feels like he has totally dominated and broken her, rather then given her any emotional goodies so that she can lovingly surrender. In that sense, she has actually defeated him by giving him 'whatever he wants', but he is not getting what he needs, and is still unsatisfied. so now the will'o'the'wisp is a word called desire.
Fearless, good stuff, in that last post. I look forward to the aformentioned post that you are holding hostage, and keeping us in anticipation of.
He says that he cannot be happy in the relationship so the only thing left is to do something that he doesn't want to do – divorce his wife. How is that not abdicating control of your own life? So someone else makes you go against your own principles? It doesn't make sense to me
Quote:
Or maybe you told them what was wrong but never really explained how problematic it is. Deraven's xW still harasses him with this kind of stuff a year and a half after she remarried. She still has to stress to him that leaving him wasn't what she wanted but that she was FORCED into by him.
Deraven would do well for himself and his Xw to cut her off as soon as he catches a whiff that the convo is headed this direction. I assume they have kid since he converses with her at all.
People have given up their lives for other people, even given up their lives for a 'principal'. Are they responsible for the executioners decision?
Anyone who claims they were FORCED to do something is a full blown Victim. I dont acknowledge that possibility in a R between to Adults who are in possesion of free will.
It just feels like he has totally dominated and broken her, rather then given her any emotional goodies so that she can lovingly surrender. In that sense, she has actually defeated him by giving him 'whatever he wants', but he is not getting what he needs, and is still unsatisfied. so now the will'o'the'wisp is a word called desire.
I actually have believed for some time that the opposite is true. I believe that Ms. Cemar has dominated, not necessarily because she is domineering, but because Cemar has left a hole in the relationship where the man ought to be. She, in her active, organized way has flowed into it and filled the hole, making Cemar superfluous in his own marriage.
Following are some disjointed thoughts on the man/woman thing.
I've been pondering the dynamic for some of the men on the forum whose wives initially exhibited a high sexual drive, who sexually pursued their husband, and who then later dropped back to "just think of England" type sex or no sex at all.
I've been dabbling through The Superior Man and pondering the aspects of polarity he discusses. And have been dwelling on the relational dynamics of strong (masculine core) women being married to softer (feminine core) men. I know we're all familar with that old saw that opposites attract. But, if that held true, then stronger woman and softer man should continue to hold attraction later in the relationship. As the woman continued from her strong position and as the husband continued delving deeper into the softer/submissive position then the logic of opposites attracting would continue to hold.
But that isn't how it seems to work.
My observations see the stronger woman steadily losing respect (if there ever was much) for her spouse while she becomes more and more domineering and demanding and minimizing him (and even his position and functioning) in the realtionship.
Softer husband is looking around trying to figure out what changed.
So, I step back and look into the time prior to the marriage. I envision shy, introverted, geeky (fill in the blank here for men who aren't making the BMOC top ten lists. They have either never attempted to pursue and date a woman, or they tried and it didn't turn out to be a pleasant experience.
Then comes along strong woman. She may or may not be beautiful or popular herself, but she's assertive. She spots Mr. Sensitive, ignores his shy shell and pushes through. I wonder how many of the men here were either approached by their future wife first, or their future wife pushed the relationship forward by asking/arranging the date, the engagement, the sex.
And she initiates the sex. The blowjobs. The daylong sexual marathons. And Mr. Sensitive is participating and loving it, but is he doing any leading?
I don't care how many rabid feminists (please note this description does not include women who merely focus on women's rights) try to push against gender roles, nature still will out.
So, Ms. Assertive loses respect for Mr. Senstive because there is no (or not enough) reciprocal manliness to balance her. Respect can quickly turn to apathy and sometimes move on to disgust.
And it's all pretty unfair - because Mr. Sensitive didn't really change.
But he's going to have to, if he ever hopes to see his situation improve.
wow, MrsNOP, that really rings true. I would add that Ms. Assertive does not initially want a leader type male...she doesn't want to feel controlled, and wants things to be her way, without having much resistance. She doesn't understand that the resistance is there, it's just passive in nature. It becomes tiring and, over time, to live with the covert resentment, and she becomes attacking...or, if drained too much, depressed. She is ready for the man to take over the reigns, but he's got his own fears and issues which he hasn't addressed.
