|
|
Post by McRoomMate on Mar 11, 2017 3:02:45 GMT -5
Mrs. Amers, Everyone has addressed the kid in the bed issue, so not gonna add my piddling 2cents. But as to porn? Some comments 1 - Just as a child is weaned from breastfeeding to solid foods, your husband has (through circumstances) been weaned away from sex with you. To something that you feel you can't compete with (but that's not actually true.) 2 - Yes, at this time, it's just possible that your hubs might just prefer porn. After all, it's a sure thing, whereas..... It's quick, it's no-hassle, it doesn't take foreplay to get your partner revved up, so, unfortunately, to him it DOES have its appeal. 3 - Yes, he IS cheating on you with his phone/tablet/computer/etc., pure and simple. He's choosing to get his jollies without you. So let him know that you are claiming the right of first refusal. Yeah, the porn is stinkin' (I write from a conservative Christian stance, so I have no toleration for it.) However, you tell him that if he's getting an urge to watch it, that he comes to you first (you promise you won't blast the boy) and lets you know. That will give you an opportunity to have conversations, etc. (and more, I hope.) It would be difficult for me to overstate the extent to which I disagree with this focus on porn. This appears to me as fundie Christian continuum model "Reefer Madness" fear mongering, scaring people about the Devil's Lettuce - Dancing leads to touching leads to etc etc. I think it will serve only to distract from uncomfortable truths. I understand the outrage - I felt it myself when I walked into Mrs Apocrypha using the showerhead to flick her bean when I stumbled in on her, just prior to bed on what had likely been two or three months without - while it was very prominent in our discussions. So, what would you say? She's addicted to shower nozzles? Come on. It's not cheating, and there's no addiction. The simplest answer is the most likely, and the hardest to see. He had a libido. For whatever reason, he is no longer into her. This isn't CAUSED by porn. It's caused by antipathy toward sharing sexual intimacy with her. Maybe he isn't attracted anymore. Maybe a deep simmering anger has taken over. Most likely, he feels trapped in a marriage that he doesn't want and the idea of engaging in intimacy feels like it's putting more bricks into the wall. Whatever it is - he's expressing his libido through fantasy, and that is a NORMAL response to NOT wanting to be intimate with someone - to choose other outlets. Do you really think porn is so great that it seems a better alternative to fucking a person you want? I can tell you it's a lot better than fucking someone you DON'T want. Do you think yelling at a guy to dump his porn, and then after that, presumably to forbid him from tossing off, is going to make him suddenly open his eyes to the person who is right there? Do you think he just forgot? This is the most potentially BRUTALLY HONEST ANSWER . . . morality aside. It is very simple - why is his libido turned away from his Wife to other sources - whatever they are is irrelevant. The point and it is a very sharp and painful point is the H has ANTIPATHY towards sex and intimacy with the W. |
|
|
|
Post by Apocrypha on Mar 11, 2017 16:35:31 GMT -5
Update: After all the posts and suggestions yesterday i decided i would talk to him about everything. He did say that our son in the bed is the main reason because we are both so tired and when he sleeps we need to sleep. And obviously that he doesn't want to wake him up. He also said the stress from moving, his job, and bills has taken a toll on us. So...we are starting with the transition of our baby sleeping in his own bed. He said he is definitely still attracted to me and still in love with me and that has never been an issue. As for the porn. He admitted it. I explained to him how it makes me feel and he has promised to stop. So we'll see how it goes and I'll update again! Hoping it will get better. You know, I've been here too - or a close variant of it. Of course, you are going to do what you are going to do, but let me explain my own eureka moment so you can recognize it hopefully earlier than I did. It was years before I had the realization that I was in the same marriage as my partner, and yet I still wanted the sex and needed it even more. I know, it seems so simple and obvious as to be immediately dismissable. "Yes, yes, same marriage....right." Unpack it though. Seems obvious, right? Tired, work, stress etc. And then you have to have sex after that? Just one more thing to worry about. Except, you also have all those things. Having the sex that you want with your partner helps you feel better. It makes life better. You sleep better. You feel more confident. It costs NOTHING. It's easy to do. And, you want it. So, don't gloss over the difference between you. Sex becomes a chore w hen you don't want it with the person who wants you. It's a thing that makes those other things bearable. Sex is wonderful in times of stress, fatigue, hardship - not a chore. Unless you don't want the sex with that person. |
|
|
|
Post by Apocrypha on Mar 11, 2017 17:05:42 GMT -5
Okay, now that I've had a chance to re-examine my intended response and allowed my inner editor to have a shot at this: 1 - bigoted. "fundie Christian"? Factual. You stated the viewpoint from which you wrote: Christian. The fixation on porn and cheating is consistent with views of fundamentalist Christianity. What you THINK of those fundamentalist views - whether they are either correct, or ethical, effective etc - that's another topic. But I don't see anything in that view that contradicts the standpoint offered in your initial post, in which you stated your Christian slant, and then explained what that means for you. Reefer Madness is a case in point of continuum models of moral panics, which are consistent with self-serving secular and non-secular ideologies. The root of all of them is that the Devil is perceived or invented within a range benign behavior. The purpose of that, much like with Scientology's "questionaire" is to demonstrate that normal people who have benign desires and behaviors also require inculcation into the ideology or religion. It curtails the notion that you actually need evidence of actual harm in order to prove the good of the ideology. So, running that program, people who smoke weed are treated the same as heroin users - because they are at "risk" for moving up the continuum (despite no evidence of this). Or, people who play violent videogames, or what violent shows "become" violent, despite the lack of evidence of this. Or people who play Dungeons and Dragons are "at risk" of Satanism, since it's a gateway toward occultism. That's the continuum model. I've seen The Great Porn Experiment - that's a change of topic from the moral/ethical distraction you posed originally - so either you haven't understood your own argument, or you haven't understood the research in the vid. Having watched the TedTalk - a lot of what's posed about the hardwired desire for porn is pretty much applicable to the desire for sex or any other pleasure in life at all. A lot of people believe Elvis is still alive somewhere. It doesn't make it true. I understand the outrage of being gaslighted with some story about a loss of libido, when it's clearly demonstrated that a libido is there - but it's not an infidelity. Rather, it's the revelation of an inauthenticity in the context of a sexual conflict. Unpack your word "jollification". If you think "after reading my backstory", that I'm recommending affairs and an open marriage, you really don't even have the most basic grasp of what I've been saying, or why I've been posting here. I wouldn't even know where to begin with you. My "side" in all of my posts, is to get to the truth of your relationship and to let the chips fall, rather than spinning in an endless purgatory. To test one's assumptions with evidence and to stop bullshitting ourselves about the situations we are in. That's incredibly generous of you. You would rather fuck a person who you definitely don't want, rather than look at porn? That's an incredible statement. I'm pretty sure that, like with everyone else on this board, the offer for sex has been made, and declined. That's why we the forum is called "I live in a sexless marriage". Isn't that what everyone is talking about here? Am I missing something? Ya, been there. I'd warrant that in most cases a refuser wants to turn a marriage around. The problem is that one doesn't invent desire for someone they don't desire. Can you imagine how life would be different in dating, love etc if you could approach desire in that manner? Arranged marriages would be back in vogue. There would never be divorce, and people would never change partners. It isn't remotely tied to reality though. I define helping as getting to the root of the problem and dealing with the truth of the relationship. |
|
|
|
Post by deadzone75 on Mar 12, 2017 8:15:42 GMT -5
Marriages involving kids are out of my territory, I admit. But I have to give you props for caring about your sex life while being a mother. Sure, maybe try putting baby in a crib, but your H needs to wake up and count his freaking blessings that you are still putting some effort into intimacy. Porn has its place for those of us who won't be touched anyway, but your situation...I'd smack that shit down quick. If there is porn that you've seen, there is more that you haven't seen, and it will increase unless you deal with it sooner rather than later. You deserve better, and if he won't sit down and give you anything beyond "oh, you're still pretty...it's fine", more drastic measures may be required.
|
|
|
|
Post by JMX on Mar 12, 2017 21:57:43 GMT -5
I am glad you are considering ending the co-sleeping situation. That wasn't my problem - I barely breastfed and had no issues making sure they were secure in their own bed from day one back from hospital.
I can only imagine what bringing a baby to the bed does to an otherwise healthy relationship (exacerbating the Madonna-Whore complex comes to mind) not to mention he was exhibiting the heebie-jeebies when you were pregnant.
Truth is, some men cannot handle the changing roles that happen during child-rearing years. Why should they? Without them, you wouldn't have said precious child. Spouse should remain number one as much as possible. The child will appreciate it in the end. Rather a healthy, happy home than to be the center of attention.
|
|
|
|
Post by csl on Mar 13, 2017 9:56:47 GMT -5
Apochrypha
Dictionary:
So, pejorative terms are factual? You good with using other such pejoratives? "Jewboy" and "raghead" are good factual terms, as well?
"Fundie" = pejorative = bigoted. Your attempt at rationalization of your bigoted language doesn't wash.
|
|
|
|
Post by hopingforachange on Mar 13, 2017 10:37:41 GMT -5
Lets stop this before the thread gets locked.
|
|
|
|
Post by Apocrypha on Mar 13, 2017 10:48:13 GMT -5
Apochrypha Dictionary: So, pejorative terms are factual? You good with using other such pejoratives? "Jewboy" and "raghead" are good factual terms, as well? "Fundie" = pejorative = bigoted. Your attempt at rationalization of your bigoted language doesn't wash. I apologize. I have changed the wording of my original post to say " fundamentalist Christian" rather than "fundie" which you and the dictionary entry you found portray as perjorative. My intent was to state that your stance on porn was consistent with fundamentalist Christian views - particular with continuum model moral panics - with examples given. |
|
|
|
Post by csl on Mar 13, 2017 12:05:11 GMT -5
Apochrypha Dictionary: So, pejorative terms are factual? You good with using other such pejoratives? "Jewboy" and "raghead" are good factual terms, as well? "Fundie" = pejorative = bigoted. Your attempt at rationalization of your bigoted language doesn't wash. I apologize. I have changed the wording of my original post to say " fundamentalist Christian" rather than "fundie" which you and the dictionary entry you found portray as perjorative. My intent was to state that your stance on porn was consistent with fundamentalist Christian views - particular with continuum model moral panics - with examples given. Apology accepted. But, as a Methodist, I am far from a wild-eyed Fundamentalist. And while Methodism is wracked at this time with whether or not to accept same-sex marriage, etc. (one UMC district elected a lesbian bishop in defiance of the denom's book of rules), I can't even begin to think that you can find ANY christian organization that says of porn, "Hey, whatever floats yer boat, dude." Nah, can't see Episcopalians, Presbyterians, etc., not having the same reaction and giving the same advice I did. Having been off about Christians, let's expand the playing field. I'm not Jewish or Muslim, so I don't know a whole lot, but I'm pretty sure that you can't any sect of Islam not having a conniption about porn. Jewish? I think that your only chance to find a laissez-faire attitude to porn would be with the Reformed branch, as Orthodox and Conservative rabbis would faint if you tried to get them to okay porn. I am completely ignorant about eastern religions, so I can't speak to Hindu or Buddhist acceptance of porn. Perhaps some of the ILIASM posters who have expressed a Buddhist tendency in this thread can speak to that. But as it stands, I don't think that you are valid in trying to marginalize my reaction as "fundamentalist". "Christian", certainly. But unless you can determine that disapproval of porn is a uniquely Christian attitude, maybe you should just refer to my "stance" would be consistent with religious people. |
|
|
|
Post by csl on Mar 13, 2017 12:07:38 GMT -5
Lets stop this before the thread gets locked. You're probably right, but more to the point is that the OP and her husband have had good communication, and they may be working on solving their problems. And that's good. |
|
|
|
Post by Apocrypha on Mar 13, 2017 12:16:54 GMT -5
But as it stands, I don't think that you are valid in trying to marginalize my reaction as "fundamentalist". "Christian", certainly. But unless you can determine that disapproval of porn is a uniquely Christian attitude, maybe you should just refer to my "stance" would be consistent with religious people. , I don't actually care to discuss you personally. The view as you have articulated though, is consistent with fundamentalist Christian views - whether or not you in particular identify yourself as a fundamentalist as, a whole, or your religious sect, or whether or not you hold other views that you believe to be moderate (no fundamentalist ever cops to being a fundamentalist). While other religious fundamentals might also have different prohibitions (Judaism, for example, has far fewer sexual prohibitions in relation to Christian fundamentalism and Islamic fundamentalism), this particular thing that I'm talking about here, with porn and continuum-model threats - is a particular darling of Christian fundamentalists in their distant and recent historical contexts. The idea that harm is present in benign, normal activities, in order to make the case that the religion is necessary prophylactic medicine to cure you of a disease that you didn't know you had. To see clear and present threats in everyday behavior as "warning signs" that you have already been corrupted. |
|
|
|
Post by csl on Mar 13, 2017 12:19:48 GMT -5
Porn isn't benign nor normal. It may be the current "average", but it isn't normal. Gary Wilson's TEDTalk demonstrates the fact that it isn't benign.
|
|
|
|
Post by Apocrypha on Mar 13, 2017 12:26:19 GMT -5
You're probably right, but more to the point is that the OP and her husband have had good communication, and they may be working on solving their problems. And that's good. Is it good communication though? And is it a warranted statement to say that good communication will result in the restoration of sexual desire for one's spouse? I can say from experience, as well as from my counselor's experience when I asked him directly - the brutal honest truth - which is that it is a normal and unsurprising result to improve the interpersonal relationship with more effective, clear, authentic communication between partners - but that it does not necessarily or even frequently result in the restoration of sexual desire. Our assumption is frequently to treat it like a wire that came loose. Reconnect the wire and the pool of sexual desire for one's spouse that sits unused now has a live channel to reboot and it resumes from wherever we left off. But in practice, the evidence I've seen and researched among those who dare talk about it seems to suggest that you can end up with a great interpersonal relationship that doesn't have desire. So, reasonably, you can have a more amicable divorce. |
|
|
|
Post by Apocrypha on Mar 13, 2017 12:26:56 GMT -5
Porn isn't benign nor normal. It may be the current "average", but it isn't normal. Gary Wilson's TEDTalk demonstrates the fact that it isn't benign. Try applying everything he said about porn to junk food, or normal food even, and see where you land. If what you are saying is true, then people who watch a lot of porn would not want to have sex with their spouses. Do you think that's a reasonable assertion to make on this board? |
|
|
|
Post by csl on Mar 13, 2017 12:31:10 GMT -5
You're probably right, but more to the point is that the OP and her husband have had good communication, and they may be working on solving their problems. And that's good. Is it good communication though? And is it a warranted statement to say that good communication will result in the restoration of sexual desire for one's spouse? I can say from experience, .... Your experience is your experience, no one else's. Your one marriage, your one divorce, etc., are not normative for everyone else. Sometimes, I repeat to myself, "I'm not the cure, I'm the patient." Try it. |
|
