|
|
Post by Apocrypha on May 16, 2017 13:50:55 GMT -5
I just find the whole "...then she doesn't love you" or "... then he is abusing you" arguments to be unnecessary leaps. It's hard to know what is in a person's heart, and it can be hard to reach that far when deciding what to do in this kind of situation - it's just an extra implication to prove. Working with what you HAVE - you have a person who is averse to having sex with you - and ........ And, years (decades) after the sex/intimacy stopped , the mental abuse that was easily hidden, begins to show it's face, in every other aspect of your marriage. Proving she/he doesn't love you, or is incapable of ever truly loving someone else. Those of us who have endured years of counselling, and failed attempts, repeatedly being controlled, manipulated, rejected, taken, hoovered, baited, love bombed,devalued, conditioned, threatened, evaded, etc..., is by no means hard to reach, and hard to prove. Others in the family, others who work with them, others who have met them, when they hear "the truth" they too see the lack of love and abuse that people are capable of. Certainly, that's a possibility. I've been through most, if not all, of the things in your list. But I also consider the amount of time 'i wasted debating whether my wife loved me or not, and the guilt I felt in weighing the the trading love for sex, as if they were opposites. This way of framing the discussion favoured inaction, and that worked to my ex-wife's benefit. Her goal was to perpetuate the existing deal that was more to aligned to her priorities than to mine. Specifically, she didn't want to cede of the benefits of marriage, and she was also well-equipped to cheat on me when I was actively seeking her assistance in fixing us - both to preserve those benefits or to convince herself to leave me, while still seeking romance and sexual excitement from someone with whom she did not feel aversion or disgust. Several years out from that, I feel like I made things needlessly complicated at the time in debating whether or not she loved me. She still claims she does. Whether she loves me or not is not really the core of the issue for me (though it is an important issue). You don't marry everyone you love. The important things are: 1. I see marriage as a romantic intimate partnership (and when I framed it this way with her, she copped to the same feeling) 2. I don't conflate celibacy with monogamy. Whether or not she loved me, I was celibate and did not have a romantic intimate relationship in my life. That meant I had been calling something a marriage that did not meet my criteria for a marriage. In fact, it didn't meet my criteria for a third date. It was still intimate, and a partnership, but calling it a marriage wasn't really bringing much to the table. When I pulled the plug on it, it felt more like calling it what it is. It felt honest - an internal honesty. That is, it didn't depend on something she could really contest (such as how she "really" felt about me, or whether she loved me or not). I've been in love before and since. It put the choice in my own hands, finally, and allowed my conscience - finally - the ability to act to reset my expectations. Whether it would blow up the family and cause great pain or not, whether or not she loved me. I was NOT living in a marriage, and it was time to acknowledge that and let the chips fall. This way, I was able to live with myself and my decision. When she came at me as an aggrieved victim - painting herself as a martyr who couldn't keep up with her husband's sexual excess (which was around one pity fuck every 3 months), or as offering the highest, finest and most intimate chaste love and sacrifice (for she was also sacrificing her sexuality in choosing to stay) - I was able to sort through the ethics and get back to the basic truths. We did not have a romantic relationship. It didn't matter what she said or how she prioritized that. For me, that was a dealbreaker for marriage. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2017 10:10:59 GMT -5
Yep, no romantic relationship = no marriage. The relationship may be something else, but it is NOT a marriage.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan on May 22, 2017 10:57:02 GMT -5
I don't agree with the notion that withholding sex is abuse. ... But even then - there are countless stories of spouses telling their partners "I am not interested in you sexually" and that information being ignored. I just find the whole "...then she doesn't love you" or "... then he is abusing you" arguments to be unnecessary leaps. I'm with Apocrypha here. I'd prefer to reserve term "abuse" is an intentional act, intending to harm. My wife is not "trying to harm me" by NOT personally being very interested in sex, or not being suitably impressed/interested with my [former] romantic advances. She's just being herself, and her base-level is "not that interested in sex". My wife loves me... in her way. She LONGS to be with me, WANTS the marriage to continue... and she's calls this love. Who am I to argue? I guess you could say: "you are just a meal ticket for her". OK, maybe. But I'd be happier -- more in love with her -- if we are having sex. So is she "just a vagina" to me? If you WANT to view either of these with such a negative spin, OK, I guess... but they both seem equally vulgar to me. But you don't HAVE to look at it that way. I mean if we were still mutually romantically attracted AND having marital relations AND she liked that I provided for her AND I like the sex we were having... then us each wanting what we want (and got) from each other would be perfectly fine (her: a roof, and me: a romantic partner). Listen: if the behavior of some refusers in SM raises to the level of abuse, so be it. I'm not going to argue the point. But ME thinking of my wife as "an abuser" doesn't ring true. Mostly because of this: any "diagnosis" that doesn't help solve the problem is not that useful to me. Me considering my wife "abusive" doesn't help me a) try to address the situation, b) inform my exit planning. It is an unwelcome distraction, bordering on useless self-pity. |
|
|
|
Post by northstarmom on May 22, 2017 11:48:47 GMT -5
While years after our divorce, I still don't feel comfortable calling my refusing ex an emotional abuser, I don't think abuse has to be deliberately hurtful or done out of malice to be abuse. People who batter or hurl names at their kids typically justify and minimize their behavior by saying it was their kid or partner's fault or was for their own good. Abusers typically view themselves as nice, caring people.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2017 13:08:20 GMT -5
While years after our divorce, I still don't feel comfortable calling my refusing ex an emotional abuser, I don't think abuse has to be deliberately hurtful or done out of malice to be abuse. People who batter or hurl names at their kids typically justify and minimize their behavior by saying it was their kid or partner's fault or was for their own good. Abusers typically view themselves as nice, caring people. I envy those of you whose refusers were not abusive. Mine was, but she denied it. I consider all of these acts abusive: 1. Screaming at me that my penis didn't work anymore, 2. Telling me that all of her friends had better husbands than me, 3. Telling me that she could easily find a better husband than me. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan on May 22, 2017 13:41:51 GMT -5
I envy those of you whose refusers were not abusive. Mine was, but she denied it. I consider all of these acts abusive: 1. Screaming at me that my penis didn't work anymore, 2. Telling me that all of her friends had better husbands than me, 3. Telling me that she could easily find a better husband than me. THAT DEFINITELY counts as abusive in my book! So I'll partially retracting my earlier proposal that "the hurt has to be intentional"; whether she meant to hurt you or not, I'm sure it did. As for this: "Telling me that all of her friends had better [spouses] than me," I would have LOVE to reply: "Funny: I feel that way about your friend's husbands." Or to be really provocative, you could have said: "You think so? Tell you what: let's arrange a swap. Pick a friend, you stay with her husband for a month, and she'll stay with me. You can compare notes when you are done." (And... YOU'D be comparing the friend to your wife as well, so YOU could give your wife an accurate report card as well...) |
|
|
|
Post by greatcoastal on May 22, 2017 14:06:58 GMT -5
I don't agree with the notion that withholding sex is abuse. ... But even then - there are countless stories of spouses telling their partners "I am not interested in you sexually" and that information being ignored. I just find the whole "...then she doesn't love you" or "... then he is abusing you" arguments to be unnecessary leaps. I'm with Apocrypha here. I'd prefer to reserve term "abuse" is an intentional act, intending to harm. My wife is not "trying to harm me" by NOT personally being very interested in sex, or not being suitably impressed/interested with my [former] romantic advances. She's just being herself, and her base-level is "not that interested in sex". My wife loves me... in her way. She LONGS to be with me, WANTS the marriage to continue... and she's calls this love. Who am I to argue? I guess you could say: "you are just a meal ticket for her". OK, maybe. But I'd be happier -- more in love with her -- if we are having sex. So is she "just a vagina" to me? If you WANT to view either of these with such a negative spin, OK, I guess... but they both seem equally vulgar to me. But you don't HAVE to look at it that way. I mean if we were still mutually romantically attracted AND having marital relations AND she liked that I provided for her AND I like the sex we were having... then us each wanting what we want (and got) from each other would be perfectly fine (her: a roof, and me: a romantic partner). Listen: if the behavior of some refusers in SM raises to the level of abuse, so be it. I'm not going to argue the point. But ME thinking of my wife as "an abuser" doesn't ring true. Mostly because of this: any "diagnosis" that doesn't help solve the problem is not that useful to me. Me considering my wife "abusive" doesn't help me a) try to address the situation, b) inform my exit planning. It is an unwelcome distraction, bordering on useless self-pity. Here's a "different" way to look at that Dan : Lets not call it vulgar, just a "lack of a better term". Let's say things even started that way,.." meal ticket, verses having sex." Where's the justification in the no sex? The meal ticket is still there " even stronger than it was in the beginning". The sex didn't just stop on a mutual agreement. The marriage started on a mutual agreement of sex. When did it stop in her mind and actions? When did the sex stop in your mind and actions? For me this is where the "abuse" comes in. The power and control of "my way only, and you will obey." Ones decisions, actions, habits, words, etc... over the others. For me and possibly others, the "abuse" label helps me in my future decision making and judgement when dealing with myself and others. Back to the Learn from your mistakes, and don't get fooled again. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2017 16:39:53 GMT -5
Or to be really provocative, you could have said: "You think so? Tell you what: let's arrange a swap. Pick a friend, you stay with her husband for a month, and she'll stay with me. You can compare notes when you are done." (And... YOU'D be comparing the friend to your wife as well, so YOU could give your wife an accurate report card as well.. You don't know how tempted I was to do that. Once, she told me that a doctor told her she had beautiful eyes, and that I NEVER mention her eyes. I told her to go tell him that his penis didn't work, and then see if he mentioned her eyes. That shut her up for a while. |
|
|
|
Post by snowman12345 on May 23, 2017 3:56:44 GMT -5
I have been thinking of writing this for a while, but I was hesitant because many refused spouses may not be ready to read it, but I have decided that we all need to hear it. It is, of course, only my opinion, but I have to say it. If you are being sexually refused by your spouse for any extended length of time, you are being betrayed. It is sexual betrayal of the most insidious kind. It is insidious because it is continual denial of the most basic part of marriage. Sex is understood to be an essential part of marriage. Of course, there are medical and/or psychological reasons that a spouse may not be able to have sex, but then one has to ask if that spouse is actively seeking treatment to resolve the issue. If the spouse refuses to seek treatment, he/she is consciously deciding to betray his/her spouse. But this is the part that has really hit me the last few months. My refuser did not love me. If she did, she would have at least been nice about refusing sex. Instead, whenever I brought it up, she would tell me that it didn’t matter because my penis didn’t even work any more (By the way, I have sought out a second opinion, and she is mistaken). So I have to tell you, if your spouse is a refuser, HE OR SHE DOES NOT LOVE YOU!!! You can say that he/she is a wonderful person, a great friend, and you have a wonderful marriage except for this one little thing. But the truth is this: YOUR REFUSER DOES NOT LOVE YOU!!! But try getting them to admit they no longer love you! On my case, the last time my wife said "I love you" to me was on March 18, 2004. It was the day my son was born. When reading her my letter telling her I wanted a divorce o stared that I no longer loved her and she no longer loved me. Christ on a cracker! She went off on that one. How dare I assume to tell her if she loves me or nit! I can't see into her heart. Fair enough,and good points. But she still never said she loved me... Actions speak louder than words my friend. |
|
|
|
Post by snowman12345 on May 23, 2017 4:27:06 GMT -5
I don't agree with the notion that withholding sex is abuse. ... But even then - there are countless stories of spouses telling their partners "I am not interested in you sexually" and that information being ignored. I just find the whole "...then she doesn't love you" or "... then he is abusing you" arguments to be unnecessary leaps. I'm with Apocrypha here. I'd prefer to reserve term "abuse" is an intentional act, intending to harm. My wife is not "trying to harm me" by NOT personally being very interested in sex, or not being suitably impressed/interested with my [former] romantic advances. She's just being herself, and her base-level is "not that interested in sex". My wife loves me... in her way. She LONGS to be with me, WANTS the marriage to continue... and she's calls this love. Who am I to argue? I guess you could say: "you are just a meal ticket for her". OK, maybe. But I'd be happier -- more in love with her -- if we are having sex. So is she "just a vagina" to me? If you WANT to view either of these with such a negative spin, OK, I guess... but they both seem equally vulgar to me. But you don't HAVE to look at it that way. I mean if we were still mutually romantically attracted AND having marital relations AND she liked that I provided for her AND I like the sex we were having... then us each wanting what we want (and got) from each other would be perfectly fine (her: a roof, and me: a romantic partner). Listen: if the behavior of some refusers in SM raises to the level of abuse, so be it. I'm not going to argue the point. But ME thinking of my wife as "an abuser" doesn't ring true. Mostly because of this: any "diagnosis" that doesn't help solve the problem is not that useful to me. Me considering my wife "abusive" doesn't help me a) try to address the situation, b) inform my exit planning. It is an unwelcome distraction, bordering on useless self-pity. Neglect is also a form of abuse. Whether intentional or not - the dog tied up in the yard may be watered and fed, but not allowed in the house as a full family member - can still do damage to the dog. Is it self pity for the dog to know it needs to belong to a pack and yet is not allowed the full benefit of belonging? Who can blame the dog for slipping his collar and running away? I don't know if a dog knows what neglect is, but the number of runaways leads me to suspect they don't like being treated like, well, a dog.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2017 8:57:58 GMT -5
Neglect is also a form of abuse. Whether intentional or not - the dog tied up in the yard may be watered and fed, but not allowed in the house as a full family member - can still do damage to the dog. Is it self pity for the dog to know it needs to belong to a pack and yet is not allowed the full benefit of belonging? Who can blame the dog for slipping his collar and running away? I don't know if a dog knows what neglect is, but the number of runaways leads me to suspect they don't like being treated like, well, a dog.
I agree with this. So if that poor dog who is always ignored sees a boy walk by who wants to play catch or run with the dog, who could blame the dog for playing with the boy who gives it the much needed attention it craves? |
|
|
|
Post by Apocrypha on May 23, 2017 10:19:39 GMT -5
An adult person has more agency than a dog that is tied up or a prisoner that is locked in a cell. An adult person usually has agency and can prioritize his or her miseries and make choices accordingly. They might be all shitty choices, but they are choices.
I don't think anyone is arguing that a situation should be endurable or is kind or benign.
Just as not all love should result in marriage, not all intimacy averse marriages that are harmful are abuse.
If I stand too long in an inhospitable environment, it will result in my harm. That doesn't mean the environment is abusive.
In some cases here, I'd say it is apparent that there IS abuse happening. But the withholding of sex, I don't really view as abuse and I don't see that calling it that brings anyone closer to remedy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2017 12:00:40 GMT -5
An adult person has more agency than a dog that is tied up or a prisoner that is locked in a cell. An adult person usually has agency and can prioritize his or her miseries and make choices accordingly. They might be all shitty choices, but they are choices. I don't think anyone is arguing that a situation should be endurable or is kind or benign. Just as not all love should result in marriage, not all intimacy averse marriages that are harmful are abuse. If I stand too long in an inhospitable environment, it will result in my harm. That doesn't mean the environment is abusive. In some cases here, I'd say it is apparent that there IS abuse happening. But the withholding of sex, I don't really view as abuse and I don't see that calling it that brings anyone closer to remedy. You are certainly entitled to your opinion. But some of us were imprisoned by years of indoctrination that marriage is forever and that we are obligated to stay in a marriage, no matter how horrible. However, I still believe that years of sexual rejection does constitute abuse. |
|
|
|
Post by Apocrypha on May 23, 2017 12:53:13 GMT -5
An adult person has more agency than a dog that is tied up or a prisoner that is locked in a cell. An adult person usually has agency and can prioritize his or her miseries and make choices accordingly. They might be all shitty choices, but they are choices. I don't think anyone is arguing that a situation should be endurable or is kind or benign. Just as not all love should result in marriage, not all intimacy averse marriages that are harmful are abuse. If I stand too long in an inhospitable environment, it will result in my harm. That doesn't mean the environment is abusive. In some cases here, I'd say it is apparent that there IS abuse happening. But the withholding of sex, I don't really view as abuse and I don't see that calling it that brings anyone closer to remedy. You are certainly entitled to your opinion. But some of us were imprisoned by years of indoctrination that marriage is forever and that we are obligated to stay in a marriage, no matter how horrible. However, I still believe that years of sexual rejection does constitute abuse. , I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest to you that there isn't a select few of us indoctrinated into thinking that marriage is forever, but rather that we ALL thought that, and that particular aspect of your thinking is not special, unique, or worse for you than for other people. Every person who makes a choice to leave a marriage starts from the same place. The mental hopscotch that's needed to leave a marriage isn't so much about betraying one's dogma, but rather reframing the problem such that one realizes, there is no longer a relationship that is a marriage. Whether the intimate relationship and partnership is benign or overtly hostile, there is no mutual romantic investment, and thus doesn't qualify as a marriage, regardless of intention at the outset. The years of sexual rejection are not reprehensible on their own. It's not reprehensible to avoid sex you don't want to have with a person with whom you don't want to have it. Whats reprehensible is the insistence on persisting in posing the relationship AS a marriage, with all the expectations, duties and responsibilities that entails, without discussing that matter with authenticity. That authenticity is a shared responsibility, and is entirely within one's own capacity to perceive and act on it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2017 15:42:44 GMT -5
flashjohn , I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest to you that there isn't a select few of us indoctrinated into thinking that marriage is forever, but rather that we ALL thought that, and that particular aspect of your thinking is not special, unique, or worse for you than for other people. Every person who makes a choice to leave a marriage starts from the same place. The mental hopscotch that's needed to leave a marriage isn't so much about betraying one's dogma, but rather reframing the problem such that one realizes, there is no longer a relationship that is a marriage. Whether the intimate relationship and partnership is benign or overtly hostile, there is no mutual romantic investment, and thus doesn't qualify as a marriage, regardless of intention at the outset. The years of sexual rejection are not reprehensible on their own. It's not reprehensible to avoid sex you don't want to have with a person with whom you don't want to have it. Whats reprehensible is the insistence on persisting in posing the relationship AS a marriage, with all the expectations, duties and responsibilities that entails, without discussing that matter with authenticity. That authenticity is a shared responsibility, and is entirely within one's own capacity to perceive and act on it. I certainly did not mean to imply that any aspect of my thinking is special or unique. And I really did not mean to say that my situation is worse than anyone else's. Everyone's situation, if it is negative, is certainly difficult for that person. If I somehow came across as if I was saying that I was better or had tried harder than anyone else, I certainly apologize. Well, I do respect your opinion, but mine just differs. I agree with you that sexual rejection per se is not reprehensible, however, I honestly feel that if you are married to another person, you know that that person has a sex drive, and you make a conscious choice not to make sure that sex drive is met, you are just as abusive as the person who chooses not to feed a child or pet. Yes, the adult has more choices to remove him/herself from the situation, but the behavior is the same. The person who is abused is not less vulnerable to abuse because he/she has greater freedom to avoid the abuse. For example, if I was to punch my wife, I have abused her. It does not matter if she is Ronda Rousey and can easily throw me across the room and choke me out, I still intentionally caused pain. But in a marriage, just as any other social partnership, there are agreements to meet the needs of the other in order to share in the benefits of said partnership. One of those agreements, even though it may not be explicit, is to meet the sexual needs of the other spouse. When that agreement is breached, an essential need has been neglected. When a need is not met and there is a person in a position with the responsibility to meet that need, that person has harmed the other person by omitting said responsibility. Correct me if I am wrong, but it appears that you are saying that by refusing to meet the sexual needs of the other spouse, the refusing spouse has effectively ended the marriage. If that is correct, I agree with you wholeheartedly. And I do agree that it is hard for the refused spouse to reframe the relationship as a failed marriage. Again, if I sounded haughty or arrogant, I apologize. |
|
