|
|
Post by DryCreek on Jan 8, 2017 11:30:25 GMT -5
I can't help but disagree with you. 20 is a compromise, 20 is closest to his and to her preference. There's a big difference between not getting exactly what you want and being unhappy with what you have. Marriage's work due to compatibility and where you find the odd [in]compatibility, compromise is what makes you find a solution. I'll agree with you that compromise is important, for sure. Perhaps picking too specifically on the example, 20° is a compromise but just because it's the midpoint between 16° and 24° doesn't mean it's a solution that pleases either person. (To be blunt and draw a parallel, half a handjob is not a compromise that either party would be happy with.) A variation on compromise might be "We'll do 16° during the day and 24° at night". Still a compromise, but at least each person is having their needs fully met part of the time. More specifically, sexual frequency... if you want it weekly and they want quarterly -- is once a month going to be acceptable for either of you? Especially if it means 'starfish' sex? A prostitute would be more enthusiastic, but for most of us that wouldn't be satisfying. More broadly, the problem isn't usually with a number of sexual episodes; that's just the most measurable symptom. It's all the other acts of intimacy that disappeared along with it, down to simple kissing, hugging, and flirting. It's an attitude and a vibe, not just a statistic. |
|
|
|
Post by bballgirl on Jan 8, 2017 11:42:56 GMT -5
I can't help but disagree with you. 20 is a compromise, 20 is closest to his and to her preference. There's a big difference between not getting exactly what you want and being unhappy with what you have. Marriage's work due to compatibility and where you find the odd [in]compatibility, compromise is what makes you find a solution. I'll agree with you that compromise is important, for sure. Perhaps picking too specifically on the example, 20° is a compromise but just because it's the midpoint between 16° and 24° doesn't mean it's a solution that pleases either person. (To be blunt and draw a parallel, half a handjob is not a compromise that either party would be happy with.) A variation on compromise might be "We'll do 16° during the day and 24° at night". Still a compromise, but at least each person is having their needs fully met part of the time. More specifically, sexual frequency... if you want it weekly and they want quarterly -- is once a month going to be acceptable for either of you? Especially if it means 'starfish' sex? A prostitute would be more enthusiastic, but for most of us that wouldn't be satisfying. More broadly, the problem isn't usually with a number of sexual episodes; that's just the most measurable symptom. It's all the other acts of intimacy that disappeared along with it, down to simple kissing, hugging, and flirting. It's an attitude and a vibe, not just a statistic. Exactly!! So well said!! My ex is intimacy averse not once did we have sex and kiss or eye contact during sex not once. Sex starved, emotionally starved, intimately starved - very sad. They don't change, they aren't capable of sustaining it even if they manage to fake it which mine never bothered to do. Basic incompatibility. It's up to us to make our lives happy because no one else will. |
|
|
|
Post by rejected101 on Jan 8, 2017 19:35:55 GMT -5
I can't help but disagree with you. 20 is a compromise, 20 is closest to his and to her preference. There's a big difference between not getting exactly what you want and being unhappy with what you have. Marriage's work due to compatibility and where you find the odd [in]compatibility, compromise is what makes you find a solution. I'll agree with you that compromise is important, for sure. Perhaps picking too specifically on the example, 20° is a compromise but just because it's the midpoint between 16° and 24° doesn't mean it's a solution that pleases either person. (To be blunt and draw a parallel, half a handjob is not a compromise that either party would be happy with.) A variation on compromise might be "We'll do 16° during the day and 24° at night". Still a compromise, but at least each person is having their needs fully met part of the time. More specifically, sexual frequency... if you want it weekly and they want quarterly -- is once a month going to be acceptable for either of you? Especially if it means 'starfish' sex? A prostitute would be more enthusiastic, but for most of us that wouldn't be satisfying. More broadly, the problem isn't usually with a number of sexual episodes; that's just the most measurable symptom. It's all the other acts of intimacy that disappeared along with it, down to simple kissing, hugging, and flirting. It's an attitude and a vibe, not just a statistic. That's partly what my issue is. ill create a new post to draw attention and comments to this point. |
|
|
|
Post by unmatched on Jan 9, 2017 20:54:43 GMT -5
But it's not. 20 is a setting that leaves you both unhappy. Neither one of you is getting what you want; it's an unpleasant compromise. Food for thought... could you really be so selfless as to give her passionate sex if you didn't enjoy it / hated intimacy? Is that act of selflessness really so different from saying you'd be sexless if she needed? I suspect for many of our spouses, it's as hard for them to give intimacy it as it is for us to go without. I'm willing to acknowledge a basic incompatibility is possible -- it's the solution that's so agonizing. I can't help but disagree with you. 20 is a compromise, 20 is closest to his and to her preference. There's a big difference between not getting exactly what you want and being unhappy with what you have. Marriage's work due to compatibility and where you find the odd compatibility, compromise is what makes you find a solution. It is very hard to compromise where you are talking about passion and intimacy. I am sure she could give you 'adequate' sex at times when she really didn't want to, but it wouldn't be satisfying for you and it would be soul-destroying for her and ultimately it would probably wreck your relationship. (That is NOT the same as being willing to try having sex and building up responsive desire, as I think you were talking about in the other thread - that makes a whole lot of sense to me if it is a possibility.) Consider if she was a massive fan of Yoko Ono and wanted to play her music at top volume and listen to it together 3 times a week. For the sake of your marriage you might be able to grin and bear it, but I doubt very much you would find it in yourself to start loving it too and get really passionate about it. |
|
|
|
Post by pfviento on Jan 9, 2017 22:51:16 GMT -5
I can't help but disagree with you. 20 is a compromise, 20 is closest to his and to her preference. There's a big difference between not getting exactly what you want and being unhappy with what you have. Marriage's work due to compatibility and where you find the odd compatibility, compromise is what makes you find a solution. It is very hard to compromise where you are talking about passion and intimacy. I am sure she could give you 'adequate' sex at times when she really didn't want to, but it wouldn't be satisfying for you and it would be soul-destroying for her and ultimately it would probably wreck your relationship. (That is NOT the same as being willing to try having sex and building up responsive desire, as I think you were talking about in the other thread - that makes a whole lot of sense to me if it is a possibility.) Consider if she was a massive fan of Yoko Ono and wanted to play her music at top volume and listen to it together 3 times a week. For the sake of your marriage you might be able to grin and bear it, but I doubt very much you would find it in yourself to start loving it too and get really passionate about it. Good point. I am going to compromise by being faithful 75% of the time. I suspect that compromise would not be viewed favorably in most relationships. This is probably why the success rate for turning these around is so low. Hard to force someone to be passionate. |
|
|
|
Post by rejected101 on Jan 10, 2017 2:37:51 GMT -5
I can't help but disagree with you. 20 is a compromise, 20 is closest to his and to her preference. There's a big difference between not getting exactly what you want and being unhappy with what you have. Marriage's work due to compatibility and where you find the odd compatibility, compromise is what makes you find a solution. It is very hard to compromise where you are talking about passion and intimacy. I am sure she could give you 'adequate' sex at times when she really didn't want to, but it wouldn't be satisfying for you and it would be soul-destroying for her and ultimately it would probably wreck your relationship. (That is NOT the same as being willing to try having sex and building up responsive desire, as I think you were talking about in the other thread - that makes a whole lot of sense to me if it is a possibility.) Consider if she was a massive fan of Yoko Ono and wanted to play her music at top volume and listen to it together 3 times a week. For the sake of your marriage you might be able to grin and bear it, but I doubt very much you would find it in yourself to start loving it too and get really passionate about it. . If when I started to listen to music I began really getting in to it, if it was only a 30 minute CD, she would definitely get to play it once a week minimum. I totally hear what you are saying. |
|
|
|
Post by novembercomingfire on Jan 10, 2017 8:29:30 GMT -5
Good point. I am going to compromise by being faithful 75% of the time. I suspect that compromise would not be viewed favorably in most relationships. This is probably why the success rate for turning these around is so low. Hard to force someone to be passionate. , that's where I am sort of at right now. Not trying to force my W to be passionate (she's not as effusive as I am), but really laying out for her that marriage without intimacy is not gonna work for me. It's been a slow few weeks, but the first time in years that she is showing real effort and admitting that she's uncomfortable with sex/intimacy and also unhappy with her position on it. Up until this point, I would have said she was hoping I'd leave. Now I realize she was just really hoping she wouldn't have to work on her issues. We'll see where we're at in a few months. Good luck to you--can't force someone to be passionate, but might be able to help them be compassionate. That's a start. In my head, i came to the realization that no matter what happens, a physical relationship with my partner will always be suboptimal with her comfortable level of dispassion. The balance remains tipped in favor of our marriage at present, but expecting a life without passion for me is probably something that will break one day. My partner also wished that i would leave at one point, but i think she feared that she would not be able to whip another person into the servitude she thinks that she so richly deserves. She definitely has no desire or intention to work on her issues. |
|
