|
|
Post by Apocrypha on Jan 22, 2017 13:27:19 GMT -5
Like you, I experienced at least enforced sexlessness from the very day after the wedding. We weren't celibate the day of the wedding - it took some time to get there. Rather, I noticed a change in tone, and a dramatic change in stance on some particular sexual acts, which were suddenly profane - whereas she had greatly enjoyed them before. I'm not ruling anything out. I'm open minded, exceptionally so, and reasonable to a fault. I'm saying I don't care much whether someone calls her aesexual or not - it didn't matter in the slightest in terms of what MY task was, and how I viewed a marital relationship, and what I wanted in my life. HEAR ME as I say this - whether she is aesexual, or hates my guts - it doesn't matter. Both results end at the same place. You are talking to a man who chased and tested his "WHY?" to a level of exceptional harm. My largest regret is in not being in a place where I could grasp and understand this message. beachguy , in the social justice world, where pathologizing a habit is the cheapest route to acquire the social currency of a valuable marginalized identity, there are people who identify as "elf kin" "tree kin" and who identify as "wolves". I don't care much for people's self-diagnoses given that I have hindsight knowledge of the level of self-delusion I'm capable of generating on my own. It's possible, as I've ceded, that she could enjoy taking two guys at once, or display a robust pattern of sexual behavior that would make a vanilla gasp and it might still fulfill someone's made up definition of what an aesexual person is. But accepting that premise strikes me as making the term "aesexual" not very useful to convey meaning. It's like activist Rachel Dolezal arguing that she is black. The whole discussion strikes me as an exercise in avoidance (one that I very much engaged in, for years). The claim itself strikes me a kind of manipulation, pathologizing a behaviour as a medical condition or identity, with the intent of appealing to the kind of accommodation or tolerance might pose in such a circumstance. |
|
|
|
Post by beachguy on Jan 22, 2017 13:55:08 GMT -5
Apocrypha, I Would argue the WHY matters until you get to the point of throwing the towel and declaring the marriage dead. Until then, if she hates your guts you might be able to change that. If she is fundamentally sexually dysfunctional there is nothing you can do. Our spouses might have reacted differently the day after the wedding but both showed strong evidence of sexual dysfunction the day after, however you want to label that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lithium92 on Jan 22, 2017 14:08:13 GMT -5
My wife - now - is functionally asexual. She's said of her volition all the things that by AVEN's criteria would make her asexual. She doesn't get aroused, doesn't want sex with anyone ever, doesn't see the need for it in a relationship. She has no libido (which isn't necessary, by AVEN criteria, but it's common). These changes happened over a period of years after we married - she was enthusiastic to start with - which coincided with various big, bad life events (a couple of miscarriages, menopause, lupus, amongst others). She's made some attempts to rekindle sex, but she just can't get into it. We've had ups and downs like any marriage, but outside of sex, we function as well most couples (*with one exception which I'll get to later). Neither of us is controlling, abusive, or anything like that and we get on well day to day.
Two things -
1. A consensus of AVEN posters rejects my hypothesis that she's asexual because she wasn't always like it. This is despite one of their shibboleths being that sexuality is fluid, meaning sexual preferences change. Apparently having some idea of why she might have these characteristics counts against 'true' asexuality. This makes no sense to me.
2. You can put two narratives on my wife's story:
(a) Bait and switch (or some version of essentially just not wanting sex with me specifically while wanting the rest of the relationship)
(b) AVEN's narrative would be that she was always asexual, but not sex-repulsed. She could enjoy sex in purely physical way but has no innate emotional need for it, and since I wanted it, she was happy to go along with this, even convincing herself she actively wanted it, as she tried to be 'normal' (a bit like repressed homosexual men do in straight relationships sometimes till they come out). Then menopause (which nuked her libido), lupus (chronic pain will also nuke libidos), etc. hit, and she wearied of going along with sex as she got nothing emotional from it either. So with no libido, no innate need for sex, no emotional pay off, she's effectively asexual.
To an extent, it doesn't matter which - we're still not having sex. But the reason does matter in that I don't want to be married to someone who'll coldly bait and switch, regardless of sex or lack thereof; or if it's specifically me she doesn't fancy, then *maybe* we can do something about that.
But, if she's effectively asexual due to life stages, illness, etc. then she's a different kind of person, struggling with her own problems, albeit not successfully. That makes her someone who, lack of sex aside, I would want to be married to.
'Lack of sex aside' is a massive qualification of course, and I'm in therapy to get my head that one.
* there's some kind of Aspergerish behaviour going on as well, which links to the lack of empathy and emotional component in sex, but I don't want to dive to deep into it on this thread.
|
|
|
|
Post by Apocrypha on Jan 22, 2017 14:42:49 GMT -5
Apocrypha , I Would argue the WHY matters until you get to the point of throwing the towel and declaring the marriage dead. Yes. That's also what I argued when I was in the same deal. What I'm saying now is what Baza used to say to me, and I said your bit, above, to him. Sexual expression is not happening. It's easy to have. If sexual expression is part of what you consider to be a marriage - then the marriage is dead, whether you declare it or not. It's a cadaver. The "WHY's" are an autopsy. Not a diagnosis. It takes time for that to sink in, even when faced with the death of a loved one. In the singles world, even without the contempt that causes someone to lose attraction, we call that "the friend zone", and it is really hard to come back from it. You run that "friends" program for a while and the relationship moulds to that shape. Desire then moves outward. The need for sex is a biologically programmed appetite. As a result, people in the single world DO have sex with people -they shouldn't -are angry at, -they are totally unattracted to physically, or marginally attracted to -whom they suspect have red flags -who they don't know, or barely know at all -who they will never see again -who they like but are in circumstances where it is logistically difficult -in situations where they might get, or cause an unwanted pregnancy -where they might get a disease, or give it to a partner They consider these things. They say, "Why not?". It's not hard to have sex. Consider the level of antipathy involved in a sexless marriage though: -Your partner WON'T bang you, -even when you want to, -even when it's important, -even when the mushroom cloud that's coming will affect her house, -the kids, finances etc, even when she is horny and knows you are available, -even when you cry, or shout, -or leave her alone, -or do dishes, -lingerie, -scented candles, -years of counseling, -date night, -open relationship, -threesomes, -or don't bother her at all for 6 months and never bring it up. So, a sexless marriage is something that goes well past contempt or indifference and it happened without anyone noticing. The marriage is dead, and even if you are able to get to a place where you enjoy each other again as people, the likelihood of desire returning to that relationship once the lack of it has been established, is on par with a cadaver emerging from the grave, fully fleshed and ready to start the day. This "WHY" stuff is entirely pinned on the hope that if you do this one thing differently, you will restore whatever it is that they liked about you a decade ago, before the ten years of establishing that they DON'T want you that way. Your partner could pull a random stranger out of a Starbucks lineup and have a better crack at sexual curiosity with that blank slate than the place you are beginning at in a sexless marriage. Just to climb UP to zero attraction, which gives you the same chance as a stranger on the street, is an enormous amount of work. |
|
|
|
Post by Lithium92 on Jan 22, 2017 15:16:08 GMT -5
Not for me. It's about figuring out whether my wife has pulled a fraud on me, hates me, or is struggling in good faith with something she can't do anything about. I assumed the first two for a long time and was resentful and even more miserable than I am now. If they'd been the case, they'd make her the kind of person I didn't even want to make an effort for. But if it was the last one, that makes her a different kind of person.
It's still not a done deal to stay, by any means. But understanding what's going on makes a difference not to whether sex happens again necessarily, but what kind of outcome I can (maybe) live with.
|
|
|
|
Post by Apocrypha on Jan 22, 2017 15:22:16 GMT -5
Not for me. It's about figuring out whether my wife has pulled a fraud on me, hates me, or is struggling in good faith with something she can't do anything about. I assumed the first two for a long time and was resentful and even more miserable than I am now. If they'd been the case, they'd make her the kind of person I didn't even want to make an effort for. Given that your wife doesn't want to have sex with you, what constitutes "making an effort" in this scenario? Are you suggesting that you would "make an effort" to commit to celibacy? That is a direction I also tried for a while. I actually bought some videogames and put my mind into investing in hobbies to occupy my thoughts instead of the sex that wasn't happening. I did them at bedtime. If I absolutely needed something, I had a "home video" I coaxed from Mrs Apocrypha when the technology was new, and a couple gruding pics taken under duress. I had more sexual involvement with those by a factor of 100 than I did in the real person. Whichever effort you are making, it's helpful to have an informed goal, and measures that increase your chance at doing well with it. |
|
|
|
Post by Lithium92 on Jan 22, 2017 15:45:09 GMT -5
I'm going to suggest that there is more to marriage than sex, and not in a refuser kind of way. I hate not having sex, I feel impoverished, disconnected, and depressed by it. But a large part, if not all, of my wife's uninterest in sex is down to menopause and lupus, neither of which are chosen by her, and they affect her in areas other than sex, and affect her more than they affect me. She also does other things that demonstrate to me that she cares about me deeply.
So I'm faced with a shit choice, and it's simply not fair on her to discount her reasons when I make it - I'm not prepared, yet, to say 'I don't care you've got a chronic degenerative autoimmune disease, you're not putting out, so kthxbi'.
Despite what the self-help hegemony would have you believe, I don't think pursuing your own happiness above anyone else's, let alone your spouse's, is automatically the best option.
As to what constitutes an effort: she accepts that sex is important to me, and is in principle open to having it when she can manage her pain to make it possible. However, that's not often, it's pretty much five minutes of vanilla missionary, and tho she's not starfishing it (and that's something she's worked on), she's clearly not in the throes of unbridled passion to put it mildly. The issue now is that its less painful for me to not initiate than insist on something neither of s actually enjoys. But do I blow up marriage over that? I dunno, to be honest.
I do know that if she'd done a bait and switch, or just no longer found me attractive, I would leave. But that's not the reason for the SM, and that's why reasons do matter.
EDIT: you edited, making my response seem a little off kilter.
|
|
|
|
Post by bballgirl on Jan 22, 2017 16:07:19 GMT -5
I'm going to suggest that there is more to marriage than sex, and not in a refuser kind of way. I hate not having sex, I feel impoverished, disconnected, and depressed by it. But a large part, if not all, of my wife's uninterest in sex is down to menopause and lupus, neither of which are chosen by her, and they affect her in areas other than sex, and affect her more than they affect me. She also does other things that demonstrate to me that she cares about me deeply. So I'm faced with a shit choice, and it's simply not fair on her to discount her reasons when I make it - I'm not prepared, yet, to say 'I don't care you've got a chronic degenerative autoimmune disease, you're not putting out, so kthxbi'. Despite what the self-help hegemony would have you believe, I don't think pursuing your own happiness above anyone else's, let alone your spouse's, is automatically the best option. As to what constitutes an effort: she accepts that sex is important to me, and is in principle open to having it when she can manage her pain to make it possible. However, that's not often, it's pretty much five minutes of vanilla missionary, and tho she's not starfishing it (and that's something she's worked on), she's clearly not in the throes of unbridled passion to put it mildly. The issue now is that its less painful for me to not initiate than insist on something neither of s actually enjoys. But do I blow up marriage over that? I dunno, to be honest. I do know that if she'd done a bait and switch, or just no longer found me attractive, I would leave. But that's not the reason for the SM, and that's why reasons do matter. EDIT: you edited, making my response seem a little off kilter. "BUT do I blow up a marriage over that?" - I think the real question is: Are you in love with your wife? If you are in love with your wife then the marriage is worth saving. Sex isn't the only way for her to be intimate with you. Cuddling, kisses, blow jobs, handjobs, etc. As well its up to us the refused to express exactly what we want and need from our partners. It sounds like your deal isn't a total shithole. If I still was in love with my husband and there was no sex because of medical issues then I think an open marriage is fair. However that was not my case. I was bait and switched from the beginning so he is my ex now. |
|
|
|
Post by Apocrypha on Jan 22, 2017 16:13:11 GMT -5
I'm going to suggest that there is more to marriage than sex, and not in a refuser kind of way. I hate not having sex, I feel impoverished, disconnected, and depressed by it. But a large part, if not all, of my wife's uninterest in sex is down to menopause and lupus, neither of which are chosen by her, and they affect her in areas other than sex, and affect her more than they affect me. She also does other things that demonstrate to me that she cares about me deeply. I care about my sister deeply. And many of my attractive female friends. Dont want to bang them I care about my ex, Mrs Apocrypha deeply - but I don't want sex with her anymore. She's still in my life. Making a difficult and painful decision about the format of a relationship does not mean one is cast out to the wolves. Rather, it's about setting expectations and believing in them. In my case, the 9 months pregnancy and the 2 years after, then another 9 month pregnancy, and another few years after - constituted a locked-tight trump card on how "she felt about her body" and her hormonal conditions regarding pregnancy. I didn't DARE make it an issue. I invested in that wholeheartedly, thinking it made me a good man. A good husband. A good father. Not like one of those other thoughtless douchebags. THough it was hard for me because she looked especially good pregnant, and I felt really close to her - I sucked it up and fueled myself on sanctimony and sacrifice. For her part, I don't think she was lying. She didn't desire me, and happened to be preggers or recently pregnant. When those excuses evaporated after some 6 years or so, there still was no sex. Then it morphed to "I'm on my period" "I'm about to have my period" (a week before) or "I just had my period" a week after. Suppose you are attending a ballet, and the lead is hit by a truck. No fault of her own, but her leg is broken and she's in a wheelchair. What's your obligation here? Is it ballet? It's really helpful to pick a direction. There might well be really good reasons for going to the performance. You might feel very sympathetic. Whatever it is, you need to be invested in that direction and find it fulfilling on SOME level, to make you drive toward it. Going in that direction though, and then lamenting that it's awful.... that's a harder road. |
|
|
|
Post by Lithium92 on Jan 22, 2017 16:19:35 GMT -5
'In love' feels a little jejune after nearly 18 years, but yes I love her. It's far from a total shithole. There's none of the mindgames that most other posters seem to get.
Actual physical contact is tricky though. There's some cuddling, but she's not naturally physically affectionate - there's something Aspergerish going in, as I said. And HJs and BJs aren't off table, I include them as 'sex', but knowing she has absolutely no pleasure in them, and is beyond ever getting any pleasure herself from anything sexual, rather takes the shine off the whole thing. She's not actually refusing but I'd be having sex with someone who was utterly meh about the experience.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lithium92 on Jan 22, 2017 16:20:57 GMT -5
FFS. A marriage isn't a ticket to the ballet. It's not a transaction.
|
|
|
|
Post by Apocrypha on Jan 22, 2017 20:44:55 GMT -5
FFS. A marriage isn't a ticket to the ballet. It's not a transaction. Jeezus chee-rist. Do you think that is the analogy I was driving at? Really? I'm suggesting that if you go to the ballet and the lead is in a wheelchair through no fault of her own, but still wants to perform - you aren't experiencing ballet. You are participating as an audience member might, but your participation is now to satisfy the need of the performer to play a role, rather than your own enjoyment of an actual ballet. That can still be fulfilling for you if that experience is what you want. If you think marriage is a sexual union, and that is partly what differentiates it from from other intimate long term relationships, and your wife is not able or willing to do that - then the relationship you are experiencing is not aligned to your concept of marriage. Your participation is now to satisfy the need of your wife to play a role, rather than to also have your own enjoyment resulting from including a sexual relationship. That can still be fulfilling for you if that experience is what you want. If you go in with the expectation of having your vision of marriage realized, you are going to enact a Sisyphean torture. |
|
|
|
Post by bballgirl on Jan 22, 2017 20:50:52 GMT -5
'In love' feels a little jejune after nearly 18 years, but yes I love her. It's far from a total shithole. There's none of the mindgames that most other posters seem to get. Actual physical contact is tricky though. There's some cuddling, but she's not naturally physically affectionate - there's something Aspergerish going in, as I said. And HJs and BJs aren't off table, I include them as 'sex', but knowing she has absolutely no pleasure in them, and is beyond ever getting any pleasure herself from anything sexual, rather takes the shine off the whole thing. She's not actually refusing but I'd be having sex with someone who was utterly meh about the experience. It's a tough spot. If you still love her it's hard to leave a marriage. I really empathize for you. I wonder if outsourcing isn't a possible solution? |
|
|
|
Post by baza on Jan 22, 2017 20:58:24 GMT -5
Based on Brother telecaster's 4th December story, he is definitely amenable to the outsourcing option.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lithium92 on Jan 23, 2017 2:59:06 GMT -5
FFS. A marriage isn't a ticket to the ballet. It's not a transaction. Jeezus chee-rist. Do you think that is the analogy I was driving at? Really? I'm suggesting that if you go to the ballet and the lead is in a wheelchair through no fault of her own, but still wants to perform - you aren't experiencing ballet. You are participating as an audience member might, but your participation is now to satisfy the need of the performer to play a role, rather than your own enjoyment of an actual ballet. That can still be fulfilling for you if that experience is what you want. If you think marriage is a sexual union, and that is partly what differentiates it from from other intimate long term relationships, and your wife is not able or willing to do that - then the relationship you are experiencing is not aligned to your concept of marriage. Your participation is now to satisfy the need of your wife to play a role, rather than to also have your own enjoyment resulting from including a sexual relationship. That can still be fulfilling for you if that experience is what you want. If you go in with the expectation of having your vision of marriage realized, you are going to enact a Sisyphean torture. Apologies - my mistake. I get what you're driving at now. To stretch the analogy further: there's more than just the prima donna (in this scenario my wife's libido) to the performance. There's the rest of the company, music, staging, sense of occasion, etc. There's still an actual ballet. Or to take something less high culture - I've seen The Who a couple of times, or rather half of The Who, since Moon and Entwhistle are dead. But Townsend and Daltrey, backed up with Pino Palladino and Zak Starkey, are still one of the best rock bands ever. It's not binary, all or nothing. |
|
