|
|
Post by becca on Oct 19, 2016 14:50:55 GMT -5
That's exactly why they do it. But falling for it isn't empathy. Empathy is feeling what others feel. The display of sadness is fake. They're feeling rage and a strong desire to control you. An empathetic reaction would send you running away screaming because feeling what he feels would terrify you. No, manipulators can make you think you love them. When in reality they are just controlling you by taking advantage of your kind nature. Well that kind nature has to go on vacation. Exactly! They count on that kindness to manipulate us! A year ago when I told my H that I wanted a divorce he begged me to go to counseling even though I asked him 3 times to go and he wouldn't in previous years. He threatened to quit his job thinking I would get scared and back down - I didn't even respond to the text. He came home crying, begging me not do this which turned into us both crying. By the end of the week he tried to reset me and that was the one time in our marriage I got to refuse him. I was focused on myself for once in my life about what I wanted- to be FREE! Oh, bballgirl, I need your kind of strength. |
|
|
|
Post by bballgirl on Oct 19, 2016 15:10:19 GMT -5
Exactly! They count on that kindness to manipulate us! A year ago when I told my H that I wanted a divorce he begged me to go to counseling even though I asked him 3 times to go and he wouldn't in previous years. He threatened to quit his job thinking I would get scared and back down - I didn't even respond to the text. He came home crying, begging me not do this which turned into us both crying. By the end of the week he tried to reset me and that was the one time in our marriage I got to refuse him. I was focused on myself for once in my life about what I wanted- to be FREE! Oh, bballgirl, I need your kind of strength. There are two sides to that coin of strength. On the one side, yes I found to strength to be resolute and put myself first, BUT the other side is I was so depleted of everything emotionally that I was to the point that I cried all the time and I did not care at all about my husband. The anger and resentment were so awful. It was getting to that point that I gained that strength. Honey my wish for you is that you find that strength before it gets as bad as it was for me. Hugs |
|
|
|
Post by Apocrypha on Jan 11, 2017 13:00:16 GMT -5
Fiery, Baza - Both correct about the way my marriage went down, after a period of false qualified happiness.
As it pertains to the discussion in this thread, I'd boil things down to a few consistencies across nearly 100% of these kinds of stories.
1. The minimum needed to get an intimacy-averse spouse to take the issue seriously in a manner that includes the spouse is either:
a) the knowledge (not threat) of a divorce, backed with a serious execution plan or steps already taken.
b) knowledge of a partner actively having sex or actively seeking it from others - whether that discovery is intentional or not.
Having a "great talk" or "sending a letter" is not going to do the trick.
In both these cases, we are talking about a gun to the head, to get attention.
2. Getting a spouse to pay attention or to be WITH you in the sense of crisis you feel, should not be conflated with them feeling intimately attracted to you in such a way as to want sexual intimacy with you. The realization of what's at stake does not snap them into discovering a lost attraction. Their attention to the problem does not equal attraction to you.
3. Sex with one's partner(s) may be either a depleting or restorative experience, or possibly and indifferent one (I'm discovering as a single dating man). It depletes when one feels obligated to have sex for reasons other than one's own desire. A partner who does not desire you may CHOOSE to comply with your requests for sex - but the sex will still COST them. It will be unwanted sex, which will further reinforce their aversion to you, while also increasing CONTEMPT for you, possibly to the point of disgust. You will notice this even if you are doing your best to remind them of how good sex with you can be, or how great a partner you can be overall by doing everything else. There are so many ways in which an intimacy averse spouse can strike a Devil's Bargain with you, destroying you by giving you what you asked for.
From a practical perspective, depletive sex means the plane has a hole in the fuel tank. You may take off with the best intentions and a full tank, but there won't be enough gas to get you there. You don't just want sex - you can do that yourself. You want a relationship with a person who wants to have sex with you. That's a different thing. Not having sex is one thing, but living and presenting as part of a "loving partnership" with a person who doesn't want you, gets you all thinking about what it MEANS that the partner who loves you doesn't desire you.
4. Counselling: This doesn't work so well if both partners aren't ALL IN, committed to being married before they go. If either one of you tries counselling with a variant of "to see if you should be partners" or "to see what's wrong" or to "decide on what to do" - this dogwhistle likely means the sessions will result in a spouse enacting a pyschodrama of their narrative as to why you or they are unsuited to marriage or to a partner. They will externalize that narrative to the therapist in front of you to convince themselves of what they want - which is a moral justification and absolution for leaving. Most counselling holds up a mirror, so if your spouse is averse, he or she will use the sessions to convince him/herself to leave.
I saw my partner's intended trajectory and feelings in those sessions - an elaborate and fantastical, self-contained narrative and a surprisingly contemptuous persona - so the value for me was in seeing that story and how utterly irretrievable it would be, even as she was invested in authoring it. I was able to see where her process was pointed, irrespective of my involvement. It helped me pull the trigger.
|
|
|
|
Post by shamwow on Jan 11, 2017 16:08:23 GMT -5
Fiery, Baza - Both correct about the way my marriage went down, after a period of false qualified happiness. As it pertains to the discussion in this thread, I'd boil things down to a few consistencies across nearly 100% of these kinds of stories. 1. The minimum needed to get an intimacy-averse spouse to take the issue seriously in a manner that includes the spouse is either: a) the knowledge (not threat) of a divorce, backed with a serious execution plan or steps already taken. b) knowledge of a partner actively having sex or actively seeking it from others - whether that discovery is intentional or not. Having a "great talk" or "sending a letter" is not going to do the trick. In both these cases, we are talking about a gun to the head, to get attention. 2. Getting a spouse to pay attention or to be WITH you in the sense of crisis you feel, should not be conflated with them feeling intimately attracted to you in such a way as to want sexual intimacy with you. The realization of what's at stake does not snap them into discovering a lost attraction. Their attention to the problem does not equal attraction to you. 3. Sex with one's partner(s) may be either a depleting or restorative experience, or possibly and indifferent one (I'm discovering as a single dating man). It depletes when one feels obligated to have sex for reasons other than one's own desire. A partner who does not desire you may CHOOSE to comply with your requests for sex - but the sex will still COST them. It will be unwanted sex, which will further reinforce their aversion to you, while also increasing CONTEMPT for you, possibly to the point of disgust. You will notice this even if you are doing your best to remind them of how good sex with you can be, or how great a partner you can be overall by doing everything else. There are so many ways in which an intimacy averse spouse can strike a Devil's Bargain with you, destroying you by giving you what you asked for. From a practical perspective, depletive sex means the plane has a hole in the fuel tank. You may take off with the best intentions and a full tank, but there won't be enough gas to get you there. You don't just want sex - you can do that yourself. You want a relationship with a person who wants to have sex with you. That's a different thing. Not having sex is one thing, but living and presenting as part of a "loving partnership" with a person who doesn't want you, gets you all thinking about what it MEANS that the partner who loves you doesn't desire you. 4. Counselling: This doesn't work so well if both partners aren't ALL IN, committed to being married before they go. If either one of you tries counselling with a variant of "to see if you should be partners" or "to see what's wrong" or to "decide on what to do" - this dogwhistle likely means the sessions will result in a spouse enacting a pyschodrama of their narrative as to why you or they are unsuited to marriage or to a partner. They will externalize that narrative to the therapist in front of you to convince themselves of what they want - which is a moral justification and absolution for leaving. Most counselling holds up a mirror, so if your spouse is averse, he or she will use the sessions to convince him/herself to leave. I saw my partner's intended trajectory and feelings in those sessions - an elaborate and fantastical, self-contained narrative and a surprisingly contemptuous persona - so the value for me was in seeing that story and how utterly irretrievable it would be, even as she was invested in authoring it. I was able to see where her process was pointed, irrespective of my involvement. It helped me pull the trigger. All very good points. I especially thing #2 is right on the money. I've been robbed before with a gun placed against my head by a guy higher than a kite on crack. I was very focused on the threat, but not necessarily on anything else. |
|
|
|
Post by Rhapsodee on Jan 11, 2017 17:52:05 GMT -5
pinkskies, as @phinheasgage said "crocodile tears". Be careful. Those crocodile tears can turn mean if they don't have the intended effect. Don't trust him and don't pity him. You are young. Don't wait until you are 56. Life is too short.
|
|
|
|
Post by unmatched on Jan 11, 2017 18:28:39 GMT -5
A partner who does not desire you may CHOOSE to comply with your requests for sex - but the sex will still COST them. It will be unwanted sex, which will further reinforce their aversion to you, while also increasing CONTEMPT for you, possibly to the point of disgust. You will notice this even if you are doing your best to remind them of how good sex with you can be, or how great a partner you can be overall by doing everything else. There are so many ways in which an intimacy averse spouse can strike a Devil's Bargain with you, destroying you by giving you what you asked for. This is scary but true, and is why the whole can't versus won't debate is so difficult. If your partner really isn't in to having sex with you but goes along with it then every time they do it they will get a little bit more averse to sex and a little bit more averse to you, until ultimately they start to hate sex and probably you along with it. On the other hand, we were talking on the other thread about responsive desire. A percentage of people, and particularly woman, very rarely feel horny at all in the normal course of life. But they can come to feel horny once they start to get aroused by touch/kissing/making out etc. So people whose desire works in this way need to understand this about themselves and they need to be willing to give it a go and see if they come to feel horny or not. (And both partners need to be willing to let it go if it doesn't happen, so you might find yourself masturbating in the shower again...) These two approaches are polar opposites, but it is not always that easy to tell the difference. |
|
pinkskies
Junior Member
Posts: 38 
Age Range: 36-40
|
Post by pinkskies on Jan 11, 2017 20:09:49 GMT -5
pinkskies , as @phinheasgage said "crocodile tears". Be careful. Those crocodile tears can turn mean if they don't have the intended effect. Don't trust him and don't pity him. You are young. Don't wait until you are 56. Life is too short. Thank you Rhapsodee. I am moving forward with the separation no matter what he says. I have to stay strong. I've had my moments over the last few weeks thinking about what I could have done differently to not end up in this situation. It's hard and the separation process is going to be difficult but I've gotta do it. |
|
pinkskies
Junior Member
Posts: 38
Age Range: 36-40
|
Post by pinkskies on Jan 11, 2017 20:11:26 GMT -5
Fiery, Baza - Both correct about the way my marriage went down, after a period of false qualified happiness. As it pertains to the discussion in this thread, I'd boil things down to a few consistencies across nearly 100% of these kinds of stories. 1. The minimum needed to get an intimacy-averse spouse to take the issue seriously in a manner that includes the spouse is either: a) the knowledge (not threat) of a divorce, backed with a serious execution plan or steps already taken. b) knowledge of a partner actively having sex or actively seeking it from others - whether that discovery is intentional or not. Having a "great talk" or "sending a letter" is not going to do the trick. In both these cases, we are talking about a gun to the head, to get attention. 2. Getting a spouse to pay attention or to be WITH you in the sense of crisis you feel, should not be conflated with them feeling intimately attracted to you in such a way as to want sexual intimacy with you. The realization of what's at stake does not snap them into discovering a lost attraction. Their attention to the problem does not equal attraction to you.3. Sex with one's partner(s) may be either a depleting or restorative experience, or possibly and indifferent one (I'm discovering as a single dating man). It depletes when one feels obligated to have sex for reasons other than one's own desire. A partner who does not desire you may CHOOSE to comply with your requests for sex - but the sex will still COST them. It will be unwanted sex, which will further reinforce their aversion to you, while also increasing CONTEMPT for you, possibly to the point of disgust. You will notice this even if you are doing your best to remind them of how good sex with you can be, or how great a partner you can be overall by doing everything else. There are so many ways in which an intimacy averse spouse can strike a Devil's Bargain with you, destroying you by giving you what you asked for. From a practical perspective, depletive sex means the plane has a hole in the fuel tank. You may take off with the best intentions and a full tank, but there won't be enough gas to get you there. You don't just want sex - you can do that yourself. You want a relationship with a person who wants to have sex with you. That's a different thing. Not having sex is one thing, but living and presenting as part of a "loving partnership" with a person who doesn't want you, gets you all thinking about what it MEANS that the partner who loves you doesn't desire you. 4. Counselling: This doesn't work so well if both partners aren't ALL IN, committed to being married before they go. If either one of you tries counselling with a variant of "to see if you should be partners" or "to see what's wrong" or to "decide on what to do" - this dogwhistle likely means the sessions will result in a spouse enacting a pyschodrama of their narrative as to why you or they are unsuited to marriage or to a partner. They will externalize that narrative to the therapist in front of you to convince themselves of what they want - which is a moral justification and absolution for leaving. Most counselling holds up a mirror, so if your spouse is averse, he or she will use the sessions to convince him/herself to leave. I saw my partner's intended trajectory and feelings in those sessions - an elaborate and fantastical, self-contained narrative and a surprisingly contemptuous persona - so the value for me was in seeing that story and how utterly irretrievable it would be, even as she was invested in authoring it. I was able to see where her process was pointed, irrespective of my involvement. It helped me pull the trigger. I agree with this entire post especially the bolded. I want my husband to desire me, really want me BUT not because I'm giving him an ultimatum. It's pretty demoralizing to think I have to give him an ultimatum just to have sex with me. This relationship no longer works for me and I have explained this to him. He was supposed to be moving out this month but he has now asked for a few more months in which to find a place. I honestly have 0 sexual attraction towards him. It will be easier for me emotionally once he moves. I agree with this entire post especially the bolded. I want my husband to desire me, really want me BUT not because I'm giving him an ultimatum. It's pretty demoralizing to think I have to give him an ultimatum just to have sex with me. This relationship no longer works for me and I have explained this to him. He was supposed to be moving out this month but he has now asked for a few more months in which to find a place. I honestly have 0 sexual attraction towards him. It will be easier for me emotionally once he moves. |
|
|
|
Post by worksforme2 on Jan 11, 2017 20:26:11 GMT -5
Exactly! They count on that kindness to manipulate us! A year ago when I told my H that I wanted a divorce he begged me to go to counseling even though I asked him 3 times to go and he wouldn't in previous years. He threatened to quit his job thinking I would get scared and back down - I didn't even respond to the text. He came home crying, begging me not do this which turned into us both crying. By the end of the week he tried to reset me and that was the one time in our marriage I got to refuse him. I was focused on myself for once in my life about what I wanted- to be FREE! Oh, bballgirl , I need your kind of strength. Oh, bballgirl, I need your kind of success at sex. |
|
|
|
Post by novembercomingfire on Jan 11, 2017 21:59:04 GMT -5
A partner who does not desire you may CHOOSE to comply with your requests for sex - but the sex will still COST them. It will be unwanted sex, which will further reinforce their aversion to you, while also increasing CONTEMPT for you, possibly to the point of disgust. You will notice this even if you are doing your best to remind them of how good sex with you can be, or how great a partner you can be overall by doing everything else. There are so many ways in which an intimacy averse spouse can strike a Devil's Bargain with you, destroying you by giving you what you asked for. This is scary but true, and is why the whole can't versus won't debate is so difficult. If your partner really isn't in to having sex with you but goes along with it then every time they do it they will get a little bit more averse to sex and a little bit more averse to you, until ultimately they start to hate sex and probably you along with it. On the other hand, we were talking on the other thread about responsive desire. A percentage of people, and particularly woman, very rarely feel horny at all in the normal course of life. But they can come to feel horny once they start to get aroused by touch/kissing/making out etc. So people whose desire works in this way need to understand this about themselves and they need to be willing to give it a go and see if they come to feel horny or not. (And both partners need to be willing to let it go if it doesn't happen, so you might find yourself masturbating in the shower again...) These two approaches are polar opposites, but it is not always that easy to tell the difference. I like that you emphasize that those who only have responsive desire need to understand this about themselves and be willing to try. My experience with responsive desire is limited to it being an excuse to complain about how i am not doing something right, enough, etc. of course its difficult when your partner doesn't like being touched or approached - but is wholly dishonest about it. |
|
|
|
Post by Apocrypha on Jan 12, 2017 14:34:25 GMT -5
A partner who does not desire you may CHOOSE to comply with your requests for sex - but the sex will still COST them. It will be unwanted sex, which will further reinforce their aversion to you, while also increasing CONTEMPT for you, possibly to the point of disgust. You will notice this even if you are doing your best to remind them of how good sex with you can be, or how great a partner you can be overall by doing everything else. There are so many ways in which an intimacy averse spouse can strike a Devil's Bargain with you, destroying you by giving you what you asked for. This is scary but true, and is why the whole can't versus won't debate is so difficult. If your partner really isn't in to having sex with you but goes along with it then every time they do it they will get a little bit more averse to sex and a little bit more averse to you, until ultimately they start to hate sex and probably you along with it. On the other hand, we were talking on the other thread about responsive desire. A percentage of people, and particularly woman, very rarely feel horny at all in the normal course of life. But they can come to feel horny once they start to get aroused by touch/kissing/making out etc. So people whose desire works in this way need to understand this about themselves and they need to be willing to give it a go and see if they come to feel horny or not. (And both partners need to be willing to let it go if it doesn't happen, so you might find yourself masturbating in the shower again...) These two approaches are polar opposites, but it is not always that easy to tell the difference. Is the difference important in the long run? The discussion over "responsive desire" - whether it exists or not, or what to call it, doesn't affect the outcome. Does it exist?In my experience in post-marriage dating - it's less dependent on the supposed intimacy-averse person than it is on the context or partner in which they find themselves. So, intimacy averse in the context of a marriage? Yup? How about with a partner with whom there is lukewarm sexual attraction - yup? Could they be convinced to have a root once in a while? Sure. I have before myself, with someone whom I was borderline attracted to - but I didn't initiate. I suspect in the context of long term monogamous partnerships, there simply isn't a context of different scenarios with which to test the hypothesis. Outside the context of that partner or that marriage (the situation of being married to that partner), everything changes. Your partner doesn't know that yet, and it exists outside of his or her imagination. In your partner's context, sex is what you do with your partner, so if you don't want sex with your partner, then you don't want sex at all. But suppose it's real.You can both discuss terms of how and why to "initiate" sex that he or she doesn't want with the hope that they jump onboard. But the practicalities of that, played out still replaces desire with obligation at the starting gate. Consider: - one partner will ALWAYS come from the place of initiating, and the other will ALWAYS come from a place of indifference or not wanting.
- at least some of the time, and eventually most of the time, that "not wanting" feeling on their part - which is real to them - will trump the "good sport" intentions, and they will "really mean it"
- some of the time, they will follow through with being a good sport, and have sex that they really don't want, and you will be the person banging them as they feel that feeling. How, across a year, two, 5, 10, will that dynamic affect their feelings and yours, presuming you can read and know your partner when they are naked?
[/ul] In the practice of animal husbandry, it's normal for a human to "manually" elicit a sexual response to completion from an animal, to obtain sperm samples. It doesn't mean the animal is attracted to the human form, or is "present" in the act. Same in a doctor's examination occasionally. While controversial as to its existence, some have discussed a kink in male sexuality involving "brojobs" and gay men seeking straight men for sex (often in prison populations, and I've been told in remote encampments with all male populations like mining sites). A sexual response can be invoked in a person's body, irrespective of their attraction or intimate investment, or "presence" with you in a moment. Prior to getting into whatever the rut is, it's likely you were both fairly enthusiastic. After you are divorced - in fact - after you decide to get divorced and the yoke of obligation is off the table - your celibate spouse is going to be just as enthusiastic in "finding their sexuality" as they were when you started dating. I used to swirl around the complexity of it all too, and it's easy to lose track of the moment where you foist obligation onto the person who doesn't want to do the nasty with you, saying "Here's what you should do! be a good sport and know yourself and go with it for a bit!" The person knows they don't want to have sex with you, in the same way you know you want to have sex. What "should happen" is not really relevant to issue of the lack of desire. When you want to have sex with someone, you want to. If your problem is that your partner doesn't want to have sex with you, whether its for one reason or another at the outset - you still haven't solved that problem by pointing out "responsive desire". Desire is about one's inclination. If you are inclined toward avoidance, whether it's a last minute coital icewater bucket like "let's just cuddle tonight, honey", or a more encompassing avoidance like flannel jammies, different bedtimes, or a total freeze so you don't "get the wrong idea" or a set of conditions that includes them always being disinclined - it's still the same problem. |
|
|
|
Post by beachguy on Jan 12, 2017 15:26:18 GMT -5
This is scary but true, and is why the whole can't versus won't debate is so difficult. If your partner really isn't in to having sex with you but goes along with it then every time they do it they will get a little bit more averse to sex and a little bit more averse to you, until ultimately they start to hate sex and probably you along with it. On the other hand, we were talking on the other thread about responsive desire. A percentage of people, and particularly woman, very rarely feel horny at all in the normal course of life. But they can come to feel horny once they start to get aroused by touch/kissing/making out etc. So people whose desire works in this way need to understand this about themselves and they need to be willing to give it a go and see if they come to feel horny or not. (And both partners need to be willing to let it go if it doesn't happen, so you might find yourself masturbating in the shower again...) These two approaches are polar opposites, but it is not always that easy to tell the difference. I like that you emphasize that those who only have responsive desire need to understand this about themselves and be willing to try. My experience with responsive desire is limited to it being an excuse to complain about how i am not doing something right, enough, etc. of course its difficult when your partner doesn't like being touched or approached - but is wholly dishonest about it. My experience: she responded negatively to any signs of affection, presumably because it "might lead to something". At that point it doesn't matter which approach, they end the same and very badly, and very sexless. And in short order I lost interest in showing any basic affection, after all the countless rejection. The inevitable plane in a stalled spin straight into the ground. |
|
|
|
Post by beachguy on Jan 12, 2017 15:39:10 GMT -5
My cynical description of a successful sexual encounter with a "responsive desire" partner ...
You somehow manage to get them aroused enough to have sex. At which point biology takes over and they then use you as a dildo or fleshlight to finish the job. If it's a guy, he'll then roll over and go to sleep. If a woman, she will immediately get up, go into the bathroom to clean up, then put on her flannel best and slide back into bed- on her side, as far away as possible. The biological function you triggered is done, now it's back to business. And yes, their Sex Adversity Meter clicks up one more notch.
|
|
|
|
Post by novembercomingfire on Jan 12, 2017 15:48:28 GMT -5
My cynical description of a successful sexual encounter with a "responsive desire" partner ... You somehow manage to get them aroused enough to have sex. At which point biology takes over and they then use you as a dildo or fleshlight to finish the job. If it's a guy, he'll then roll over and go to sleep. If a woman, she will immediately get up, go into the bathroom to clean up, then put on her flannel best and slide back into bed- on her side, as far away as possible. The biological function you triggered is done, now it's back to business. And yes, their Sex Adversity Meter clicks up one more notch. Sure. But i think you forgot his or her urging you to finish as quickly as possible ... |
|
|
|
Post by beachguy on Jan 12, 2017 16:45:22 GMT -5
My cynical description of a successful sexual encounter with a "responsive desire" partner ... You somehow manage to get them aroused enough to have sex. At which point biology takes over and they then use you as a dildo or fleshlight to finish the job. If it's a guy, he'll then roll over and go to sleep. If a woman, she will immediately get up, go into the bathroom to clean up, then put on her flannel best and slide back into bed- on her side, as far away as possible. The biological function you triggered is done, now it's back to business. And yes, their Sex Adversity Meter clicks up one more notch. Sure. But i think you forgot his or her urging you to finish as quickly as possible ... I actually never had THAT issue. I talk a lot about asexuality because I believe my STBX is. And I believe most of our spouses are, at least and in particular those that started refusing early in the relationship (especially within the first year or two of marriage or earlier). I also believe intimacy aversion is a particular flavor of asexuality. The definition of intimacy aversion is indistinguishable from certain types of asexuality, that is a fact. All that is left is to argue over labeling. In my case, at least until things really got bad between us, once I did manage to get my STBX going she never wanted to stop. And that confused me and made me question the asexuality idea. Until it all fell into place and I understood that I truly was a (rarely used or desired) dildo for her. (and I had other reasons/hints specific to the sex she demanded) And after I came to understand that asexuality and sex drive are two totally unrelated things. And to be clear, I'd never suggest there is no such thing as legitimate responsive desire from a sexual person. But I am quite convinced a lot of basically asexual people hide behind the excuse of responsive desire. And I also think, because of that, that responsive desire masks a far larger asexual population than is conventionally believed. I think it is well north of the usually quoted 1% number, which is a WAG that the asexual community came up with. |
|
