I've had some more thoughts on this excellent post of Brother
Dan .
Mrs Dan is in a marriage that meets the vast majority of her needs.
Were she NOT tied up with Brother Dan, then she would either
"A" - be in a pretty much identical marriage, except with "Fred"
or
"B" - be single and looking for a marriage pretty much identical with what she has with Brother Dan.
The *cherry on top* for her would be the missing ingredient, namely a spouse who willingly embraces the non sexuality of the situation without reservation, without getting pissy about it, without cheating, without it being any sort of *issue* at all.
And, her wish to have such a relationship is completely reasonable and valid.
There is nothing wrong with aspiring toward such a relationship at all.
A case could be argued that this - perfectly legitimate - aspiration of hers is one that she is perfectly entitled to pursue.
Just as Brother Dan is entitled to pursue his aspirations toward HIS version of a relationship that pretty much meets the vast majority of his needs, but with his *cherry on top* including a robust sex life.
That, also is a perfectly legitimate aspiration.
Mrs Dan hasn't got exactly what she needs. Close, but no cigar.
In one key area there is a problem. Brother Dan has not embraced the non sexual part of the deal with any enthusiasm at all.
She needs someone who will.
Brother Dan hasn't got what he needs either. No Havanna for you either Dan (!!)
In one key area there is a problem. Mrs Dan has not embraced the sexual part of the deal with any enthusiasm at all.
Brother Dan needs someone who will.
Would it not be a kindness (a very disruptive and painful kindness short term) to release each other ?
Or for one of you to unilaterally make that call in the longer term best interests of both parties ?
