|
|
Post by Rhapsodee on Mar 6, 2017 11:46:11 GMT -5
He punishes people by denying them what they want most. I spent years trying to be the perfect pet wifey. That girl is gone for good.
Now that I am the counter-refuser and have distanced myself from him, I've come to the conclusion that he was punishing me by denying me sex. In his mind I didnt deserve it. I don't know what I was being punished for. I don't really care.
Counter refusing doesn't make any of this any less painful. It isn't satisfying in the least. There are no benefits other than self preservation. He is showing signs of interest in me. Too late.
Waste not, want not.
|
|
|
|
Post by solodriver on Mar 6, 2017 13:53:09 GMT -5
He punishes people by denying them what they want most. I spent years trying to be the perfect pet wifey. That girl is gone for good. Now that I am the counter-refuser and have distanced myself from him, I've come to the conclusion that he was punishing me by denying me sex. In his mind I didnt deserve it. I don't know what I was being punished for. I don't really care. Counter refusing doesn't make any of this any less painful. It isn't satisfying in the least. There are no benefits other than self preservation. He is showing signs of interest in me. Too late. Waste not, want not. My roommate withheld sex so that I would make some desired changes. I made those changes and then she thought, "hey I could do this again", so she asked for a few more changes by withholding sex. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me! I didn't fall for it again. Then came medical issues and then menopause and that was the end of our sex life. I would definitely counter refuse if (which I don't have to worry about) she ever showed interest again. I also don't really care about it with her anymore.
It is very painful to live this way and our relationship is very distant; we just communicate about what needs to be done and that's it. No "I Love You's" or any type of physical contact. We're very strictly legal roommates. Too late to change this course now. And if she doesn't like it, separation and divorce is the only option for her. I will not do counseling because it would be a complete waste of time and money.
|
|
|
|
Post by baza on Mar 7, 2017 2:17:01 GMT -5
Counter-refusing will not do one damn thing about your ILIASM shithole (as if anything does)
What it will do, is to help you reclaim part of your sexual autonomy.
By making the choice *yours* that there will be no sex, you take ownership.
It is a subtle change of thinking but very empowering.
But again, it will not do anything about your ILIASM shithole.
|
|
|
|
Post by Apocrypha on Mar 7, 2017 13:24:18 GMT -5
Consider the following: To turn around a Sexless Marriage, the couple needs to have these 2 essential conditions fulfilled or any hope is futile: 1. BOTH must still be in love 2. BOTH must be willing to work / sacrifice / efforts for the good of the couple I will venture to say the first condition about being IN LOVE is really the main thing. [...] And all this dysfunction and toxicity which one finds upon analysis (resentment, control issues, fear based living, people pleasing, etc.) ends up killing whatever Love there ever was in the Marriage and once it is dead it is gone for good. In other words, Love cannot be fabricated or reproduced once it is dead in the relationship. I think there is too much opportunity for self-delusion in this to be of practical use. What does "turn around" mean? Most, if not all intimacy-avoidant couples believe themselves to love each other regardless of the level of their dysfunction. Even physically abusive couples believe themselves to be in love. There is no way to step outside of one's own perspective except to look at the evidence as displayed through behavior and self-reflection. If I love this person and I find her attractive physically, why do I not want to have sex with her now, when I did before? You don't need to be in love to want sex with each other - to desire a person (the desire results in the sex). I think that when desire is lost from a relationship, it is the result of a significant loss somewhere earlier: A) either one or both partners failing to be interesting individuals - melding lives, friends and interests and sanding off the edges to the point that there's no real point in coming together - nothing really of interest in the other (you met and fell in love as individuals) B) a significant disconnection resulting in active antipathy. A turnoff. Consider in the dating/singles world, once you reach either the friendzone or you have actively turedn someone off, there is really NOTHING that can be done. You might clear the misunderstanding, become friends again - but that gets you back up to zero, if you are even able to do that. Starting at zero doesn't ever mean that you will be able to replicate a second time whatever led you to desiring each other in the first place. That's the biggest tragedy of all of this - or one of them. You can do ALL the work to pull yourself up from antipathy and still, you end up back at the same starting line as an acquaintance or stranger, as far as desire goes. |
|
|
|
Post by McRoomMate on Mar 7, 2017 13:36:42 GMT -5
Consider the following: To turn around a Sexless Marriage, the couple needs to have these 2 essential conditions fulfilled or any hope is futile: 1. BOTH must still be in love 2. BOTH must be willing to work / sacrifice / efforts for the good of the couple I will venture to say the first condition about being IN LOVE is really the main thing. [...] And all this dysfunction and toxicity which one finds upon analysis (resentment, control issues, fear based living, people pleasing, etc.) ends up killing whatever Love there ever was in the Marriage and once it is dead it is gone for good. In other words, Love cannot be fabricated or reproduced once it is dead in the relationship. I think there is too much opportunity for self-delusion in this for it to be of practical use. What does "turn around" mean? Most, if not all intimacy-avoidant couples believe themselves to love each other, regardless of the level of their dysfunction. Even physically abusive couples often believe themselves to be in love - so there is no way to step outside of one's own perspective, except to look at the evidence as displayed through behavior and self-reflection. If I love this person and I find her attractive physically, why do I not want to have sex with her, when I did before? You don't need to be in love to want sex with each other - to desire a person (the desire results in the sex). I think that when desire is lost from a relationship, that it is the result of a significant and likely permanent loss - A) either a partner or both failing to be interesting individuals - melding lives, friends and interests and sanding off the edges to the point that there's no real point in coming together - nothing really of interest in the other (you met and fell in love as individuals) B) a significant disconnection resulting in active antipathy. A turnoff. Consider in the dating/singles world, once you reach either the friendzone, or once you actively turn someone off - there is really NOTHING that can be done. You might clear the misunderstanding, become friends again etc - but that gets you back up to zero, if you are even able to do that. But starting at zero doesn't ever mean that you will be able to replicate whatever led you to desiring each other in the first place, a second time. That's the biggest tragedy of all of this - or one of them. You can do ALL the work to pull yourself up from antipathy and still, you end up back at the same starting line as your partner's friend from work, after years. I have read and re-read your post. Very dense and packed with a massive dose. We are getting closer and closer indeed. Very very very good to read. Damn good comments. |
|
|
|
Post by Apocrypha on Mar 8, 2017 13:10:48 GMT -5
It's a bit of what I wish I'd known, or could be told, earlier.
I remember after her affair, starting what we called our "second relationship" (which it was, in most ways), the years of intensive and hard therapy - so hard - getting to a place of fairly good communication, regular date nights, activities, my own interests and friends, being emotionally expressive, engaged with the family, fit - ALL THE THINGS. And after all that, sex was still a struggle.
I asked the therapist what I wished I'd asked him a couple years previous. "Is it normal to come to such a good place, as he'd pronounced us, and still be struggling with an absence of physical intimacy in our relationship?"
"Yes, I'd say that is a fairly normal outcome."
To be honest, I don't remember much of the session after that point.
|
|
|
|
Post by McRoomMate on Mar 8, 2017 20:13:57 GMT -5
It's a bit of what I wish I'd known, or could be told, earlier. I remember after her affair, starting what we called our "second relationship" (which it was, in most ways), the years of intensive and hard therapy - so hard - getting to a place of fairly good communication, regular date nights, activities, my own interests and friends, being emotionally expressive, engaged with the family, fit - ALL THE THINGS. And after all that, sex was still a struggle. I asked the therapist what I wished I'd asked him a couple years previous. "Is it normal to come to such a good place, as he'd pronounced us, and still be struggling with an absence of physical intimacy in our relationship?" "Yes, I'd say that is a fairly normal outcome." To be honest, I don't remember much of the session after that point. I am confused. How could she be anti-sex with you and yet had an affair which I assume would be sexual in nature? I had a very serious girlfriend(we counted on marriage one day) and she cheated on me with several men. So I can relate to being the Oursourcee and it sucked and hurt hard and broke my f----g heart and scarred for years before I could fall in love again . . . many years. Still it seems counter intuitive that your W is anti-sex with you but had an affair? This also goes to a theory I have seen here and there that some SM is not that the spouse is Anti-Sex in general but anti-sex (for whatever reason) personally towards the Spouse. I am just trying to understand - any insights are appreciated. |
|
|
|
Post by baza on Mar 8, 2017 22:39:25 GMT -5
If someone is averse to sex with YOU, it can be very easy to project that it must follow that they are averse to sex generally.
WRONG !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It does NOT follow at all.
It is true that some people are averse to sex generally - *including* sex with you.
It is also true that some people are averse to sex specifically with you, but capable of firing up for someone else.
But do you see the common element here ?
*You* are in the shit if you are hooked up with someone who doesn't like sex generally.
*You* are in the shit if you are hooked up with someone who does like sex generally, but not with you.
Either way, you are in the shit.
Either way, you are equally disenfranchised.
Either way, your choices are the same.
Usually, you are best served to work with the facts on the ground.
The person is sexually averse to you.......................................................full stop.
Why this is the case, whether they are sexually averse generally, whether it's unique to you is actually a sidebar.
It doesn't matter.
|
|
|
|
Post by Apocrypha on Mar 9, 2017 13:12:02 GMT -5
If someone is averse to sex with YOU, it can be very easy to project that it must follow that they are averse to sex generally. WRONG !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It does NOT follow at all. It is true that some people are averse to sex generally - *including* sex with you. It is also true that some people are averse to sex specifically with you, but capable of firing up for someone else. But do you see the common element here ? *You* are in the shit if you are hooked up with someone who doesn't like sex generally. *You* are in the shit if you are hooked up with someone who does like sex generally, but not with you. Either way, you are in the shit. Either way, you are equally disenfranchised. Either way, your choices are the same. Usually, you are best served to work with the facts on the ground. The person is sexually averse to you.......................................................full stop. Why this is the case, whether they are sexually averse generally, whether it's unique to you is actually a sidebar. It doesn't matter. @mcroommate - Baza nailed it in one. If there was one piece of advice that I see people consistently missing on this board, that's nearly cognitively impossible to grasp and yet everything depends on it - it's this. It permeates everything I write on here. I can paint a picture for you of what that looks like between a couple - how they both end up signing off on a "I don't like sex as much as you" narrative. Mrs. Apocrypha says she loved me. Loves me, even still. "My best possible love," in her words. She adopts the stance of the aggrieved party in that "her love wasn't good enough, because of her failure to want sex." It's worth noting, I would characterize her as having a passive-aggressive mode of pursuing conflict, through sabotage (for family and childhood reasons that make sense in context and hindsight - I don't think she has much awareness that this is her primary mode of engagement in conflict - she's like Putin's stealth invasion of Crimea). And yet, the affair, the open relationship with two boyfriends in addition to me, and in separation, at least two more younger boyfriends concurrent for two years. So how does she do this while still maintaining the narrative? Same way as everyone else does. First, she was overtly committed to the idea of the family household enterprise, particularly as parent roles, but that was divested from her sense of sexuality. Because she didn't imagine sex apart from the overt sense of obligation she had toward me - who she didn't want to have sex with - she didn't think she wanted sex at all. Thus any attempt I made to communicate or engage on that matter was posed as pressure. If on the rare occasion, she was able to hold her nose and acquiesce to an instant of sex, and I interpreted that as her snapping out of it and trying again, then that was posed as sexual "excess" on my part. Again, she wasn't "good enough" - I would never be sated. Her rationale for her affair happened when I lost my job and took over as primary caregiver for a while, while she stepped forward with her own career. She ended up falling for a guy she worked with. Her rationalization was that this guy helped her "feel sexual" again, and once she "felt sexual", she told herself that she could use that feeling in our marriage. So, she rationalized that the affair was good in that it helped remedy her sexual avoidance, which in her mind had sunk our marriage. Mind you, she was deep in the fog at that time, and didn't realize the amount of open contempt she was displaying while engaged in the affair. So, in her mind, she was viewing this affair as medicine for her sexless affliction, and this guy was a hero who was saving her and our family. When I eventually confronted him and had a discussion about it, this is how HE had come to think of it as well. After a failed attempt at reconciliation that lasted about a year, we had agreed to separate. At this time, she was still holding to the "I don't like sex" narrative. Two weeks after, but before anyone had moved out - we were folding laundry. I asked quietly, out of curiosity, "Now that you never have to have sex with a person again, do you find this to be a relief?" It wasn't intended as a smartass comment. I wasn't going anywhere with it. I was curious - given how adamant she had been on her "libido imbalance" narrative. She paused. We'd been together around 15 years at that point, more or less. I saw her then - the tiny curl of the corner of her mouth, the things she was thinking but searching for a delicate way to say, the surprise on her face that she was thinking them, the embarrassment at being aware that I was seeing her entire thought bubble bloom above her head - that it was plain for me to see. I knew instantly - we both did - that she had come to a place, 2 weeks later, where she was very much looking forward to exploring sex with new men. I didn't have to say anything - we both knew. I broke silence first with "I see. I thought so." The next day, she pitched the open relationship to me - a further variant on the "I need to find my libido by exploring my needs with others, to bring it back to you." So it was again posed almost as medicine - like this "loss of libido" was some psychological affliction that required therapy and accommodation if we were to continue. I thought a long time on it and agreed eventually, along with a discussion of rules, boundaries, customs etc aimed at giving it the best chance of success for both of us. Thus started our period of several of our Rock and Roll years, in which I am pretty sure it was established that she was most certainly and unequivocably NO PRUDE - a woman of appetites. When sex fell off again with us, and when enough "mistakes had been made" to ensure that it was a pattern of increasingly cruel and spectacular sabotage, and NOT just a learning curve (which curiously - I didn't seem to need as much - mainly because I was actually invested in the marriage, rather than creating a reason to end it), she STILL clung to the narrative that she was in general - low libido and averse to intimacy. While I'm open minded to a fault, at this point I went with the easiest answer, which is Baza's answer above. Both of had been invested in the idea that she was averse to sex in general, because that was the easier pill to swallow. In fact, she was pretty eager to have sex with other men, in general, and I had less of a shot at either sex or something that would be an invested intimate sexual relationship, than a stranger responding to a craigslist ad. Which - btw, she posted for the day after we agreed to separate slowly and not see anyone for a while. And is still together with him - two years later, along with her other boyfriend. So. There's a picture - a single anecdote of what it looked like for me, with a person who claimed she isn't so much into sex. |
|
|
|
Post by McRoomMate on Mar 10, 2017 8:13:08 GMT -5
If someone is averse to sex with YOU, it can be very easy to project that it must follow that they are averse to sex generally. WRONG !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It does NOT follow at all. It is true that some people are averse to sex generally - *including* sex with you. It is also true that some people are averse to sex specifically with you, but capable of firing up for someone else. But do you see the common element here ? *You* are in the shit if you are hooked up with someone who doesn't like sex generally. *You* are in the shit if you are hooked up with someone who does like sex generally, but not with you. Either way, you are in the shit. Either way, you are equally disenfranchised. Either way, your choices are the same. Usually, you are best served to work with the facts on the ground. The person is sexually averse to you.......................................................full stop. Why this is the case, whether they are sexually averse generally, whether it's unique to you is actually a sidebar. It doesn't matter. @mcroommate - Baza nailed it in one. If there was one piece of advice that I see people consistently missing on this board, that's nearly cognitively impossible to grasp and yet everything depends on it - it's this. It permeates everything I write on here. I can paint a picture for you of what that looks like between a couple - how they both end up signing off on a "I don't like sex as much as you" narrative. Mrs. Apocrypha says she loved me. Loves me, even still. "My best possible love," in her words. She adopts the stance of the aggrieved party in that "her love wasn't good enough, because of her failure to want sex." It's worth noting, I would characterize her as having a passive-aggressive mode of pursuing conflict, through sabotage (for family and childhood reasons that make sense in context and hindsight - I don't think she has much awareness that this is her primary mode of engagement in conflict - she's like Putin's stealth invasion of Crimea). And yet, the affair, the open relationship with two boyfriends in addition to me, and in separation, at least two more younger boyfriends concurrent for two years. So how does she do this while still maintaining the narrative? Same way as everyone else does. First, she was overtly committed to the idea of the family household enterprise, particularly as parent roles, but that was divested from her sense of sexuality. Because she didn't imagine sex apart from the overt sense of obligation she had toward me - who she didn't want to have sex with - she didn't think she wanted sex at all. Thus any attempt I made to communicate or engage on that matter was posed as pressure. If on the rare occasion, she was able to hold her nose and acquiesce to an instant of sex, and I interpreted that as her snapping out of it and trying again, then that was posed as sexual "excess" on my part. Again, she wasn't "good enough" - I would never be sated. Her rationale for her affair happened when I lost my job and took over as primary caregiver for a while, while she stepped forward with her own career. She ended up falling for a guy she worked with. Her rationalization was that this guy helped her "feel sexual" again, and once she "felt sexual", she told herself that she could use that feeling in our marriage. So, she rationalized that the affair was good in that it helped remedy her sexual avoidance, which in her mind had sunk our marriage. Mind you, she was deep in the fog at that time, and didn't realize the amount of open contempt she was displaying while engaged in the affair. So, in her mind, she was viewing this affair as medicine for her sexless affliction, and this guy was a hero who was saving her and our family. When I eventually confronted him and had a discussion about it, this is how HE had come to think of it as well. After a failed attempt at reconciliation that lasted about a year, we had agreed to separate. At this time, she was still holding to the "I don't like sex" narrative. Two weeks after, but before anyone had moved out - we were folding laundry. I asked quietly, out of curiosity, "Now that you never have to have sex with a person again, do you find this to be a relief?" It wasn't intended as a smartass comment. I wasn't going anywhere with it. I was curious - given how adamant she had been on her "libido imbalance" narrative. She paused. We'd been together around 15 years at that point, more or less. I saw her then - the tiny curl of the corner of her mouth, the things she was thinking but searching for a delicate way to say, the surprise on her face that she was thinking them, the embarrassment at being aware that I was seeing her entire thought bubble bloom above her head - that it was plain for me to see. I knew instantly - we both did - that she had come to a place, 2 weeks later, where she was very much looking forward to exploring sex with new men. I didn't have to say anything - we both knew. I broke silence first with "I see. I thought so." The next day, she pitched the open relationship to me - a further variant on the "I need to find my libido by exploring my needs with others, to bring it back to you." So it was again posed almost as medicine - like this "loss of libido" was some psychological affliction that required therapy and accommodation if we were to continue. I thought a long time on it and agreed eventually, along with a discussion of rules, boundaries, customs etc aimed at giving it the best chance of success for both of us. Thus started our period of several of our Rock and Roll years, in which I am pretty sure it was established that she was most certainly and unequivocably NO PRUDE - a woman of appetites. When sex fell off again with us, and when enough "mistakes had been made" to ensure that it was a pattern of increasingly cruel and spectacular sabotage, and NOT just a learning curve (which curiously - I didn't seem to need as much - mainly because I was actually invested in the marriage, rather than creating a reason to end it), she STILL clung to the narrative that she was in general - low libido and averse to intimacy. While I'm open minded to a fault, at this point I went with the easiest answer, which is Baza's answer above. Both of had been invested in the idea that she was averse to sex in general, because that was the easier pill to swallow. In fact, she was pretty eager to have sex with other men, in general, and I had less of a shot at either sex or something that would be an invested intimate sexual relationship, than a stranger responding to a craigslist ad. Which - btw, she posted for the day after we agreed to separate slowly and not see anyone for a while. And is still together with him - two years later, along with her other boyfriend. So. There's a picture - a single anecdote of what it looked like for me, with a person who claimed she isn't so much into sex. One big EMPATHETIC HUG FROM MY HEART TO YOURS !!! What a brave and honest post. Man, this Forum NEVER ceases to amaze me. Love and Light and Blessings sent your way. I am on the right forum. I think if archaeologists in the future dig up this Forum on a server they will find the ONE TIME people got as brutally HONEST and TRUE as true and honest can be. Amazing post. Break through white light moment. AMEN. |
|
|
|
Post by McRoomMate on Mar 10, 2017 8:17:22 GMT -5
Apocrypha My three cents - Leave HER immediately and as fast as you can. You are so much better than this and deserve a million times better. She is NO GOOD. Sorry - from what I read she is EVIL and manipulating you. I had a girlfriend like that she cheated on me left and right. Sure it was my fault to a certain extent but trust is irretreivably broken. I stuck around like a sucker because I was so in love with her and went thru EVEN MORE PAIN than I would have had a I cut her lose. Again sorry to be brutal - GET THE F--K AWAY FROM HER SHE IS TOXIC. Again - Full respect and maximum empathy for your suffering here. That is my three cents and it is of course your decision whatever it might be.
|
|
|
|
Post by Apocrypha on Mar 10, 2017 12:10:02 GMT -5
Apocrypha My three cents - Leave HER immediately and as fast as you can. You are so much better than this and deserve a million times better. She is NO GOOD. Sorry - from what I read she is EVIL and manipulating you. I had a girlfriend like that she cheated on me left and right. Sure it was my fault to a certain extent but trust is irretreivably broken. I stuck around like a sucker because I was so in love with her and went thru EVEN MORE PAIN than I would have had a I cut her lose. Again sorry to be brutal - GET THE F--K AWAY FROM HER SHE IS TOXIC. Again - Full respect and maximum empathy for your suffering here. That is my three cents and it is of course your decision whatever it might be Thank you. I ended the "marriage" portion of our association a couple years ago, shortly after the final realization, above, when the sex went off again and she crossed another boundary I'd set. After another returning from another celibate weekend "getaway" and after a sad "save the marriage" vacation in which I kept thinking it would have been a romantic place to be if I'd been their WITH someone, I asked if she wanted to be married to me. She said, "I don't know." That was my Rubicon. It not only violated my condition for even attempting therapy (her initial answer, which wasn't good enough, was "to see if we should be married"), but "I don't know" also fell short of even my most basic requirements to go on a second date with a near stranger. It wasn't good enough to agree to go out for drinks with someone, let alone be married. Now we are co-parents to two young children, and have a close and awkward association and all the things associated with it, that I'd tried to avoid. Is "she" toxic? That's not for me to say - she seems to be nicer to other people than she was to me. Whatever she is, is beside the point. She doesn't want to be married to me and doesn't want me that way. The most generous reading I'm inclined to give her is that being trapped in a marriage to someone you don't want is not likely to bring out the best version of a person. Was she manipulative? Yes - passive-aggressive specifically. Her method was always sabotage, often self-inflicted, to create a spectacular fuck up in which to engineer a hostile response, to which she'd complain about my anger toward her. Some of the things she did - I told a close friend once and SHE cried at hearing it. Near the end, she would get right in my face, like someone arguing with an umpire. I kept my hands in my pockets. Most of this board is focused on the sex, and I understand that completely - but hindsight brings my attention way upstream from the products of desire. I am more focused on authenticity and difficult truths. Sort those first and either the sex or the divorce will sort themselves much faster. The facts on the ground here for 99% of us are that our spouses don't want us. There may be many reasons for that - but usually those are not things that we can fix. Even if we fix the things that caused the disconnection, once the active antipathy has set in, it's not like people become sexy again. Intimacy avoidance is not indifference - it's antipathy. It means our disgust is actively overriding the libido. I don't really see evidence that people come back from that. It means you are going to get divorced. I offer my story in the full knowledge that most people in this boat would never in a million years go that far to accommodate a dysfunctional relationship. I offer it to show you how far you can go down the rabbit hole clinging to the narrative of some mysterious "loss of libido" while all evidence points to an irrevocable personal disconnection between two people. It isn't a loss of libido. It's a failure - often on both parts - to accept and own the consequences of a difficult truth. |
|
|
|
Post by McRoomMate on Mar 10, 2017 12:31:19 GMT -5
Apocrypha My three cents - Leave HER immediately and as fast as you can. You are so much better than this and deserve a million times better. She is NO GOOD. Sorry - from what I read she is EVIL and manipulating you. I had a girlfriend like that she cheated on me left and right. Sure it was my fault to a certain extent but trust is irretreivably broken. I stuck around like a sucker because I was so in love with her and went thru EVEN MORE PAIN than I would have had a I cut her lose. Again sorry to be brutal - GET THE F--K AWAY FROM HER SHE IS TOXIC. Again - Full respect and maximum empathy for your suffering here. That is my three cents and it is of course your decision whatever it might be Thank you. I ended the "marriage" portion of our association a couple years ago, shortly after the final realization, above, when the sex went off again and she crossed another boundary I'd set. After another returning from another celibate weekend "getaway" and after a sad "save the marriage" vacation in which I kept thinking it would have been a romantic place to be if I'd been their WITH someone, I asked if she wanted to be married to me. She said, "I don't know." That was my Rubicon. It not only violated my condition for even attempting therapy (her initial answer, which wasn't good enough, was "to see if we should be married"), but "I don't know" also fell short of even my most basic requirements to go on a second date with a near stranger. It wasn't good enough to agree to go out for drinks with someone, let alone be married. Now we are co-parents to two young children, and have a close and awkward association and all the things associated with it, that I'd tried to avoid. Is "she" toxic? That's not for me to say - she seems to be nicer to other people than she was to me. Whatever she is, is beside the point. She doesn't want to be married to me and doesn't want me that way. The most generous reading I'm inclined to give her is that being trapped in a marriage to someone you don't want is not likely to bring out the best version of a person. Was she manipulative? Yes - passive-aggressive specifically. Her method was always sabotage, often self-inflicted, to create a spectacular fuck up in which to engineer a hostile response, to which she'd complain about my anger toward her. Some of the things she did - I told a close friend once and SHE cried at hearing it. Near the end, she would get right in my face, like someone arguing with an umpire. I kept my hands in my pockets. Most of this board is focused on the sex, and I understand that completely - but hindsight brings my attention way upstream from the products of desire. I am more focused on authenticity and difficult truths. Sort those first and either the sex or the divorce will sort themselves much faster. The facts on the ground here for 99% of us are that our spouses don't want us. There may be many reasons for that - but usually those are not things that we can fix. Even if we fix the things that caused the disconnection, once the active antipathy has set in, it's not like people become sexy again. Intimacy avoidance is not indifference - it's antipathy. It means our disgust is actively overriding the libido. I don't really see evidence that people come back from that. It means you are going to get divorced. I will readily admit and apologize that "Toxic" is not appropriate (Sorry I felt your pain too much and it was an emotional reaction). Absolutely, "SEX" is NOT the real issue it is INTIMACY. And you sir nailed it in my mind with this statement and I quote " Intimacy avoidance is not indifference - it's antipathy. It means our disgust is actively overriding the libido. I don't really see evidence that people come back from that. It means you are going to get divorced." Intimacy avoidance is antipathy when disgust over rides the libido In my mind that should be a maxime about the HEART of SM which we really should be calling "Intimacy-less Marriage" it really is "IM" at the end of the day. Sex is a part and ONLY a part of intimacy. The heart of the problem is NO INTIMACY. Thank-you. I have grown in my knowledge of this situation and look above all at my part in this. You mentioned a lot about dishonesty and her anger. Of course Anger is just Fear boiled. What is she afraid of? The Truth being discovered. A truth that maybe I or your wife or anybody does not want to be known and the most clever of truths to reveal are those deeply hidden by self-deception. In the final analysis the most powerful lies are the ones we tell ourselves. Yes this Forum is Therapy and a Godsend. |
|
|
|
Post by Apocrypha on Mar 10, 2017 12:51:02 GMT -5
The truth is that she said "yes" to my proposal after chasing me for years, and that she did not want to be married to me. The truth that she wrestles with is that marriage isn't for everyone who is in love, and she knew her thoughts about what marriage meant to her based on her own parents. She thought she had the best chance of a white picket fence with me - more than anyone, and that maybe if she said yes, she'd win the lottery and be surprised that it worked out.
So, rather than her "come to Jesus" moment, which I'd had in making my decision to propose - she instead walked off a cliff and hoped for a soft landing. So the truth that she struggles with is knowing that I offered the real thing, and that she took the place of someone who would have been a partner. Who would have wanted that.
|
|
|
|
Post by eternaloptimism on Mar 10, 2017 13:01:32 GMT -5
The truth is that she said "yes" to my proposal after chasing me for years, and that she did not want to be married to me. The truth that she wrestles with is that marriage isn't for everyone who is in love, and she knew her thoughts about what marriage meant to her based on her own parents. She thought she had the best chance of a white picket fence with me - more than anyone, and that maybe if she said yes, she'd win the lottery and be surprised that it worked out. So, rather than her "come to Jesus" moment, which I'd had in making my decision to propose - she instead walked off a cliff and hoped for a soft landing. So the truth that she struggles with is knowing that I offered the real thing, and that she took the place of someone who would have been a partner. Who would have wanted that. Wow. That's big!! But also good to know. It wasn't you! Lottery was a great choice of word there. |
|
