|
Post by Apocrypha on Dec 4, 2017 13:00:04 GMT -5
Here is the way this works in practice for most people. Your awareness of the problem and feelings of distress increase across time, rather than remaining static. You both express resentment and eventually get into a spiral of mutual disdain. You carry that cross during the entire time. The six years elapses and you say, "time's up! I want a divorce" She tearfully falls to her knees and begs you to stay. Throws you down and makes love to you in a way that you believe it. You do her every which way but Sunday. She says "Let's get therapy. I want to do that with you! She finally talks to you about her resentment from some argument from a decade ago that made her lose respect for you." She talks about her parents. She opens up with a chaffe cloud of issues and you both realize there's lots to talk about in therapy, and she is saying she wants to do that. She's telling you everything you wanted to hear. She's saying she takes this seriously now. She thought she could fix it alone but she realizes now she needs help, or needs to try harder, or try different things. She's ready now. She's sorry. Please don't go. Please don't leave me. Let's work it out! Ball's in your court. Thanks Apocrypha, but is that really true? My impression from the admittedly short time I have been on this site is that when the D topic is finally broached, the usual response is a kind of sullen acceptance. For example, one I read recently: his wife's response was to say nothing but go to the computer and start transferring money between accounts. This does not sound like falling to her knees, begging him to stay and offering sex in an interesting variety of positions to me! And how could a sexless partner possibly sustain that kind of approach after a 15 or 20 year sexless marriage? It just doesn't stack up. For a couple of months, maybe, but as soon as the pressure was off, he or she would surely revert to type? I haven't pressed the point hard enough here. The point isn't that she falls to her knees and begs you for a chance at therapy, or that she resigns herself to an atomic divorce; the point is that until the time is up, this will not be taken seriously and nothing will happen. The status quo will continue, with nothing but a fight and a warning here and there - manageable so far. IF she takes you seriously and 6 months to 6 years from now, you call time and she begs family counseling from you after a single heartfelt blowjob, you still haven't reached the starting line yet. The starting line is zero - basically the attraction of a total stranger. Therapy might get to up to zero, and then see. That process is going to take several years at least, and likely as not will still be unsuccessful. So, on the 6 year plan, if you say "yes" to her 11th hour capitulation (a capitulation to therapy, but not to having desire for you), you start another clock ticking and the therapy itself becomes the new filibuster. I've said it many times on this thing - nothing at all happens until a nuclear scale consequence is attached to the situation. 1. An affair is discovered. 2. A divorce is sought. 3. An open relationship is chosen as an alternative to a divorce. Whether desire is created out of all that or not - those are the only criteria that can cause a partner to take it seriously. Why is that? It's because the partner who doesn't desire you now has their own interests threatened. Their own interests are represented by their marital lifestyle - family, marterial and social standing as part of a couple. If they don't desire you, that's all that's left.
|
|
|
Post by james on Dec 5, 2017 4:04:59 GMT -5
Thank you Apocrypha I really appreciate your insights. If I have understood you correctly, you are saying that the refusing partner will choose to allow the status quo to perpetuate until one of the three nuclear options listed above is activated. I agree with that- in fact it seems to describe accurately what is going on in my own marriage at the moment.
I want to add a comment, though, which is that it is surely not ok to activate a nuclear option without fair warning, and to give fair warning is therefore not meaningless. Consider a sexless marriage in which the low libido spouse is fine and the high libido spouse is deeply unhappy, but where the HLS chooses to say absolutely nothing to his partner about it. This goes on for 20 years. They never discuss it, they rub along ok, and in fact the LLS has no reason to believe there is anything wrong with the relationship. Then after 20 years the HLS can't take any more, ups sticks and leaves suddenly, without any notice or warning. I think this does happen sometimes in marriages, and the left behind spouse is left with feelings of shock and sadness. In my view this type of action by the HLS is wrong and unfair.
So, whilst in one sense it is meaningless to make threats, express dissatisfaction etc, in another sense this can be seen as an essential part of preparing the ground for eventual departure.
Does this fit in with the view that you are expressing?
|
|
|
Post by brian on Dec 5, 2017 8:22:39 GMT -5
Thank you Apocrypha I really appreciate your insights. If I have understood you correctly, you are saying that the refusing partner will choose to allow the status quo to perpetuate until one of the three nuclear options listed above is activated. I agree with that- in fact it seems to describe accurately what is going on in my own marriage at the moment. I want to add a comment, though, which is that it is surely not ok to activate a nuclear option without fair warning, and to give fair warning is therefore not meaningless. Consider a sexless marriage in which the low libido spouse is fine and the high libido spouse is deeply unhappy, but where the HLS chooses to say absolutely nothing to his partner about it. This goes on for 20 years. They never discuss it, they rub along ok, and in fact the LLS has no reason to believe there is anything wrong with the relationship. Then after 20 years the HLS can't take any more, ups sticks and leaves suddenly, without any notice or warning. I think this does happen sometimes in marriages, and the left behind spouse is left with feelings of shock and sadness. In my view this type of action by the HLS is wrong and unfair. So, whilst in one sense it is meaningless to make threats, express dissatisfaction etc, in another sense this can be seen as an essential part of preparing the ground for eventual departure. Does this fit in with the view that you are expressing? james, this is why I have made it perfectly clear to my roomie that if I find somebody that will have sex with me, I WILL have sex with them... and that I am actively searching. Fair Warning that the status quo ain't working.
|
|
|
Post by Apocrypha on Dec 7, 2017 18:13:35 GMT -5
Thank you Apocrypha I really appreciate your insights. If I have understood you correctly, you are saying that the refusing partner will choose to allow the status quo to perpetuate until one of the three nuclear options listed above is activated. I agree with that- in fact it seems to describe accurately what is going on in my own marriage at the moment. I want to add a comment, though, which is that it is surely not ok to activate a nuclear option without fair warning, and to give fair warning is therefore not meaningless. Consider a sexless marriage in which the low libido spouse is fine and the high libido spouse is deeply unhappy, but where the HLS chooses to say absolutely nothing to his partner about it. This goes on for 20 years. They never discuss it, they rub along ok, and in fact the LLS has no reason to believe there is anything wrong with the relationship. Then after 20 years the HLS can't take any more, ups sticks and leaves suddenly, without any notice or warning. I think this does happen sometimes in marriages, and the left behind spouse is left with feelings of shock and sadness. In my view this type of action by the HLS is wrong and unfair. So, whilst in one sense it is meaningless to make threats, express dissatisfaction etc, in another sense this can be seen as an essential part of preparing the ground for eventual departure. Does this fit in with the view that you are expressing? Somewhat - though in the specific example that you offer, isn't the TWENTY YEARS OF CELIBACY fair warning, on the face of it? I understand what you are saying and I agree in taking an empathic approach once you are both onboard with the truth of your relationship. I would even go so far as saying that both partners bear responsibility for choosing a celibate relationship over the risk of no relationship at all. The problem is that it's very hard for BOTH partners to accept the truth of their relationship, once it has reached the point of sexual aversion. It's treated as a behavioral problem or as a lack of courtesy, which are minor issues compared to the sheer mountain wall that is the reality that one's desire for one's partner has been destroyed. If you want to save yourself time and headache, try to get to that truth as fast as you can. And note - there's usually little evidence that it's a "low libido spouse" as you say. There are lots of people I don't want sex with, and it doesn't mean my libido is low.
|
|
|
Post by james on Dec 11, 2017 15:25:26 GMT -5
Apocrypha, thank you for posting, your input is greatly appreciated. Thank you. Is this point worth making? 20 years of celibacy may not be fair warning, for the simple reason that both partners may actually be happy with the situation. If you were on a trajectory to become a refusing partner, and this realisation dawned on you a short time after committing yourself to a lifelong relationship with your spouse, then WHAT A RESULT! if it turned out that your spouse was like-minded. And if your spouse never said a word about it, would it even occur to you that they might not be happy with the situation ("oh, I thought all couples stopped having sex after <insert time period> of marriage"). Which brings me back to my point: you *have* to say something. Otherwise your refusing partner will think you are fine with it.
|
|
|
Post by Apocrypha on Dec 11, 2017 16:24:58 GMT -5
Apocrypha , thank you for posting, your input is greatly appreciated. Thank you. Is this point worth making? 20 years of celibacy may not be fair warning, for the simple reason that both partners may actually be happy with the situation. If you were on a trajectory to become a refusing partner, and this realisation dawned on you a short time after committing yourself to a lifelong relationship with your spouse, then WHAT A RESULT! if it turned out that your spouse was like-minded. And if your spouse never said a word about it, would it even occur to you that they might not be happy with the situation ("oh, I thought all couples stopped having sex after <insert time period> of marriage"). Which brings me back to my point: you *have* to say something. Otherwise your refusing partner will think you are fine with it. 20 years of celibacy. Is it a marriage? I'll grant that there was a wedding, but is it a marriage as either party defines it? Suppose it was in your vows - does either party say "I do"? If both partners are happy with the situation, such as it is (marriage or not) then there's no body and no crime. But then, neither party would be googling "sexless marriage" and ending up here, right? So I think we can safely dispense with that hypothetical. If it exists, it's not a problem we need to deal with here. If we are talking about a situation approaching 6 months or so, then I'm certain there is value in discussing why the separation or divorce is occurring - let's be reasonable about it. Something has happened and maybe it can help to have closure - understanding how or why the relationship augured to the point that someone doesn't want to touch you.
|
|
|
Post by wom360 on Dec 11, 2017 16:57:17 GMT -5
After 20 years most have had the talk so many times, and done nothing, that their credibility is down to zero. And for good reason.
|
|
|
Post by h on Dec 11, 2017 17:43:04 GMT -5
After 20 years most have had the talk so many times, and done nothing, that their credibility is down to zero. And for good reason. Most likely yes. That doesn't necessarily mean every case is like that. I have been unhappily married for more than 9 years but I never had the talk until just this year. It's what happens after the talk that determines credibility, not the length of time before. At least, that's the way I see it.
|
|
|
Post by wom360 on Dec 11, 2017 19:05:14 GMT -5
After 20 years most have had the talk so many times, and done nothing, that their credibility is down to zero. And for good reason. Most likely yes. That doesn't necessarily mean every case is like that. I have been unhappily married for more than 9 years but I never had the talk until just this year. It's what happens after the talk that determines credibility, not the length of time before. At least, that's the way I see it. I agree 100%. If one is not ready to act, don’t have the talk. It’s about follow through, not elapsed time.
|
|
|
Post by csl on Dec 13, 2017 15:33:59 GMT -5
Most likely yes. That doesn't necessarily mean every case is like that. I have been unhappily married for more than 9 years but I never had the talk until just this year. It's what happens after the talk that determines credibility, not the length of time before. At least, that's the way I see it. I agree 100%. If one is not ready to act, don’t have the talk. It’s about follow through, not elapsed time. Hense the warning on my blog: Until it becomes intolerable, you will tolerate. It's only when the situation becomes intolerable will you do something decisive about it.
|
|