Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2017 9:51:04 GMT -5
My W just call me a pervert....cause people who into sex are exactly that.... Your wife is sadly mistaken. This is adding insult to injury. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2017 9:58:05 GMT -5
And yet divorce can cost you more than half of everything and a lifetime of seeing you children every other weekend. So as reasonable as it may sound in terms of the law, one person will always end up losing more than the other. I know what you mean, my friend. This was the exact reason that I stayed as long as I did. I didn't have to pay child support, and I got to see my daughters on a regular basis. Was it worth it? I don't know. I did think that I was able to be a positive influence on my kids while I was living at home with them. However, I did lose part of myself by waiting so long, and my refuser is going to get part of my retirement. It is just a judgment call. Some people leave earlier than others. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2017 9:59:35 GMT -5
The other day an attractive member of the opposite sex walked by so for a change i smiled and we started chatting. I would have slept with them but I had to get going, or i would be missed, back to someone who refuses me. So I don't normally smile. Whats the point ! I am not a free person. My friend, you will be having sex with someone else at some point. It may not be tomorrow, or next week, or next year. But it is going to happen. You can't live without sexual fulfillment forever. |
|
|
|
Post by WindSister on Aug 14, 2017 12:10:25 GMT -5
I don't get into the labeling.
I just know a sexless romantic relationship doesn't work for someone who wants sex in their romantic relationship.
It just doesn't work.
|
|
|
|
Post by mypaintbrushes on Aug 14, 2017 13:03:56 GMT -5
I don't get into the labeling. I just know a sexless romantic relationship doesn't work for someone who wants sex in their romantic relationship. It just doesn't work. Agreed. I like sex. If you don't like sex, I will forever be wondering why that's missing. |
|
|
|
Post by Apocrypha on Aug 14, 2017 13:10:48 GMT -5
No.
Abuse implies intent toward harm, rather than simply "pain" or "anguish" which can result from other intentions.
If we assume an intent to harm, it follows that either:
a) the "refuser" wants to have sex with their partner, but refrains because they enjoy prioritizing their partner's anguish over their own needs.
b) the refuser, who doesn't want sex with their partner, OWES the enactment of a sexual relationship with a person they don't desire.
"
The problem is more akin to a space capsule with two passengers, but oxygen only for one. Neither goal (living), is served by both breathing. They are working to cross purposes.
A refuser's goal isn't necessarily to refuse sex with someone they don't want, but rather to avoid sex with someone they don't want.
But both parties have a stake in the other benefits of the relationship. Those might be financial benefits or efficiencies, relationships with children, friends, status, etc. Leaving the appearance of a marriage risks all these things.
So, you might ask, "Well, if the marriage is unsatisfying, isn't the onus on the refuser to leave?"
And the answer to that is, "No more, and no less than it is for the refused to leave."
In essence, both sides are faced with the same choice to stay or leave, with various flavours of each (I'd argue that "cheating" is an approach to staying).
Both face undesired risks and consequences, and tend to prioritize one over the other, while feeling "trapped" in a situation that is not fulfilling.
|
|
|
|
Post by solitarysoul on Aug 14, 2017 14:44:33 GMT -5
The other day an attractive member of the opposite sex walked by so for a change i smiled and we started chatting. I would have slept with them but I had to get going, or i would be missed, back to someone who refuses me. So I don't normally smile. Whats the point ! I am not a free person. My friend, you will be having sex with someone else at some point. It may not be tomorrow, or next week, or next year. But it is going to happen. You can't live without sexual fulfillment forever. Yes you can.... I have pulled it off for over 40 years...given the drop in hormones, I suspect the next 40 will be easier.... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2017 15:21:42 GMT -5
My friend, you will be having sex with someone else at some point. It may not be tomorrow, or next week, or next year. But it is going to happen. You can't live without sexual fulfillment forever. Yes you can.... I have pulled it off for over 40 years...given the drop in hormones, I suspect the next 40 will be easier.... I hope you make the choice not to live that way. It was really hard, but I did it. I am so very glad I did. |
|
|
|
Post by carl on Aug 14, 2017 19:14:36 GMT -5
No. Abuse implies intent toward harm, rather than simply "pain" or "anguish" which can result from other intentions. If we assume an intent to harm, it follows that either: a) the "refuser" wants to have sex with their partner, but refrains because they enjoy prioritizing their partner's anguish over their own needs. b) the refuser, who doesn't want sex with their partner, OWES the enactment of a sexual relationship with a person they don't desire. " The problem is more akin to a space capsule with two passengers, but oxygen only for one. Neither goal (living), is served by both breathing. They are working to cross purposes. A refuser's goal isn't necessarily to refuse sex with someone they don't want, but rather to avoid sex with someone they don't want. But both parties have a stake in the other benefits of the relationship. Those might be financial benefits or efficiencies, relationships with children, friends, status, etc. Leaving the appearance of a marriage risks all these things. So, you might ask, "Well, if the marriage is unsatisfying, isn't the onus on the refuser to leave?" And the answer to that is, "No more, and no less than it is for the refused to leave." In essence, both sides are faced with the same choice to stay or leave, with various flavours of each (I'd argue that "cheating" is an approach to staying). Both face undesired risks and consequences, and tend to prioritize one over the other, while feeling "trapped" in a situation that is not fulfilling. I think you are assuming the refusing partner isn't just some selfish power freak with a pathetic sex drive. Bet they would be the same where ever you put them. |
|
|
|
Post by rejected101 on Aug 15, 2017 2:57:11 GMT -5
No. Abuse implies intent toward harm, rather than simply "pain" or "anguish" which can result from other intentions. If we assume an intent to harm, it follows that either: a) the "refuser" wants to have sex with their partner, but refrains because they enjoy prioritizing their partner's anguish over their own needs. b) the refuser, who doesn't want sex with their partner, OWES the enactment of a sexual relationship with a person they don't desire. " The problem is more akin to a space capsule with two passengers, but oxygen only for one. Neither goal (living), is served by both breathing. They are working to cross purposes. A refuser's goal isn't necessarily to refuse sex with someone they don't want, but rather to avoid sex with someone they don't want. But both parties have a stake in the other benefits of the relationship. Those might be financial benefits or efficiencies, relationships with children, friends, status, etc. Leaving the appearance of a marriage risks all these things. So, you might ask, "Well, if the marriage is unsatisfying, isn't the onus on the refuser to leave?" And the answer to that is, "No more, and no less than it is for the refused to leave." In essence, both sides are faced with the same choice to stay or leave, with various flavours of each (I'd argue that "cheating" is an approach to staying). Both face undesired risks and consequences, and tend to prioritize one over the other, while feeling "trapped" in a situation that is not fulfilling. I get what you are saying here and it has opened my eyes a little. However, using your analogy of oxygen for one which is a very interesting analogy by the way, when the 2 people enter the space capsule (a marital agreement) they sign documents and publicly announce that they will share the oxygen together. Getting married means it is no longer her or him it is they. They are one. Why is it reasonable for one to dictate that their partner is the one starved of oxygen. Why is it right for one to have that much control. Being in control is often linked heavily to abuse so that's why I would tend to disagree that it is not a form of abuse. Assuming the refuser knows that they are starving their partner (and nearly all do know), they are abusing their position of being able to control the oxygen levels. So then we are left with the idea that someone can just leave the space capsule. Of course they can. But it comes at a cost. The cost for many is that you will never ever have the same relationship with their children again. I don't care what anyone says, I was closer to my mum than dad as a result of their split. I have seen that scenario over and over in life and the parent with residency is always the closest to their kids. Therefore leaving is an idea that is devastating to many people. That is fact. So my analogy would be this... You enter the space capsule, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that their is enough oxygen because your partner has allowed you enough to believe so. Having agreed to enter on a permanent basis with them and spent some time together, they turn the oxygen down. They are fine, you are not. They could offer you more but they simply won't. This is not because there is a risk of the oxygen running out because there is an endless supply. They simply won't turn it up. After suffering and starving you consider leaving but the cost is that you will have your left hand amputated. Now the choice just to leave isn't so appealing. Your hand will grow back but it will never function as well as did before. Knowingly being in control and being deliberately dismissive to your significant others needs is surely a form of abuse. |
|
|
|
Post by Apocrypha on Aug 15, 2017 9:27:07 GMT -5
No. Abuse implies intent toward harm, rather than simply "pain" or "anguish" which can result from other intentions. If we assume an intent to harm, it follows that either: a) the "refuser" wants to have sex with their partner, but refrains because they enjoy prioritizing their partner's anguish over their own needs. b) the refuser, who doesn't want sex with their partner, OWES the enactment of a sexual relationship with a person they don't desire. " The problem is more akin to a space capsule with two passengers, but oxygen only for one. Neither goal (living), is served by both breathing. They are working to cross purposes. A refuser's goal isn't necessarily to refuse sex with someone they don't want, but rather to avoid sex with someone they don't want. But both parties have a stake in the other benefits of the relationship. Those might be financial benefits or efficiencies, relationships with children, friends, status, etc. Leaving the appearance of a marriage risks all these things. So, you might ask, "Well, if the marriage is unsatisfying, isn't the onus on the refuser to leave?" And the answer to that is, "No more, and no less than it is for the refused to leave." In essence, both sides are faced with the same choice to stay or leave, with various flavours of each (I'd argue that "cheating" is an approach to staying). Both face undesired risks and consequences, and tend to prioritize one over the other, while feeling "trapped" in a situation that is not fulfilling. I get what you are saying here and it has opened my eyes a little. However, using your analogy of oxygen for one which is a very interesting analogy by the way, when the 2 people enter the space capsule (a marital agreement) they sign documents and publicly announce that they will share the oxygen together. Getting married means it is no longer her or him it is they. They are one. Why is it reasonable for one to dictate that their partner is the one starved of oxygen. Why is it right for one to have that much control. Being in control is often linked heavily to abuse so that's why I would tend to disagree that it is not a form of abuse. Assuming the refuser knows that they are starving their partner (and nearly all do know), they are abusing their position of being able to control the oxygen levels. So then we are left with the idea that someone can just leave the space capsule. Of course they can. But it comes at a cost. The cost for many is that you will never ever have the same relationship with their children again. I don't care what anyone says, I was closer to my mum than dad as a result of their split. I have seen that scenario over and over in life and the parent with residency is always the closest to their kids. Therefore leaving is an idea that is devastating to many people. That is fact. So my analogy would be this... You enter the space capsule, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that their is enough oxygen because your partner has allowed you enough to believe so. Having agreed to enter on a permanent basis with them and spent some time together, they turn the oxygen down. They are fine, you are not. They could offer you more but they simply won't. This is not because there is a risk of the oxygen running out because there is an endless supply. They simply won't turn it up. After suffering and starving you consider leaving but the cost is that you will have your left hand amputated. Now the choice just to leave isn't so appealing. Your hand will grow back but it will never function as well as did before. Knowingly being in control and being deliberately dismissive to your significant others needs is surely a form of abuse. No, I don't think you "get what I'm saying" yet, nor that you disagree. You have restated the initial proposition. In the space capsule "analogy" - the reasonable assumption is that both assumed based on the best knowledge they had (that of being in love and going steady for a while), that there was life support for two. Over the course of the voyage, something changed that perception, and now they are "trapped" in a situation where the costs of leaving are high. Look, it doesn't MATTER, once you are in orbit, that contract with whoever built the capsule SAYS it should work, nor that your partner didn't operate the capsule properly, thus causing the accident. The facts as they ARE, is that there isn't enough air. You can point fingers and wave contracts and agreements about what was owed, what should have happened etc - but it doesn't change anything. You both a faced with the situation of leaving or staying in a hazardous situation. "So then we are left with the idea that someone can just leave the space capsule. Of course they can. But it comes at a cost. The cost for many is that you will never ever have the same relationship with their children again."Yes. This is what I said. The risk or certainty of losing other relationships, as well as the rest of the costs I laid out are apparent. Usually for BOTH parties. Only it's not "just" leave the capsule, as you have put it - implying that it's easy. No, it's more like Sandra Bullock in "Gravity" where you are taking a desperate and terrifying shot at changing a losing proposition, at great personal risk. Your partner isn't fine. They are also in a sexless marriage. In their narrative, THEY are the hero who chose not to break up the marriage over sex. They recognize all the same other benefits to marriage that you recognize. The difference is that you desire YOUR PARTNER, and that your partner DOESN'T desire you. If your partner was required to service a person, or wince their way through a daily insemination from someone they aren't attracted to, then there might be an ILIASM equivalent board entitled, "I submit myself to daily ravaging from someone I'm not attracted to so I can see my children". But that's not the way our laws and social mores tend to work. No one here looks at the choice to leave as appealing. That's why this board is called "I LIVE IN a sexless marriage" rather than "I easily left a sexless marriage" - which really wouldn't need a support group, right? |
|
|
|
Post by Apocrypha on Aug 15, 2017 9:31:23 GMT -5
I think you are assuming the refusing partner isn't just some selfish power freak with a pathetic sex drive. Bet they would be the same where ever you put them. My empirical research - my own ex wife, as well as many of the other ex-wives I've been dating across 3 years - leads me to conclude that the "pathetic" sex drive problem gets cleared up remarkably quickly when the prospect of a new partner changes the game. |
|
|
|
Post by rejected101 on Aug 15, 2017 10:44:59 GMT -5
I get what you are saying here and it has opened my eyes a little. However, using your analogy of oxygen for one which is a very interesting analogy by the way, when the 2 people enter the space capsule (a marital agreement) they sign documents and publicly announce that they will share the oxygen together. Getting married means it is no longer her or him it is they. They are one. Why is it reasonable for one to dictate that their partner is the one starved of oxygen. Why is it right for one to have that much control. Being in control is often linked heavily to abuse so that's why I would tend to disagree that it is not a form of abuse. Assuming the refuser knows that they are starving their partner (and nearly all do know), they are abusing their position of being able to control the oxygen levels. So then we are left with the idea that someone can just leave the space capsule. Of course they can. But it comes at a cost. The cost for many is that you will never ever have the same relationship with their children again. I don't care what anyone says, I was closer to my mum than dad as a result of their split. I have seen that scenario over and over in life and the parent with residency is always the closest to their kids. Therefore leaving is an idea that is devastating to many people. That is fact. So my analogy would be this... You enter the space capsule, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that their is enough oxygen because your partner has allowed you enough to believe so. Having agreed to enter on a permanent basis with them and spent some time together, they turn the oxygen down. They are fine, you are not. They could offer you more but they simply won't. This is not because there is a risk of the oxygen running out because there is an endless supply. They simply won't turn it up. After suffering and starving you consider leaving but the cost is that you will have your left hand amputated. Now the choice just to leave isn't so appealing. Your hand will grow back but it will never function as well as did before. Knowingly being in control and being deliberately dismissive to your significant others needs is surely a form of abuse. No, I don't think you "get what I'm saying" yet, nor that you disagree. You have restated the initial proposition. In the space capsule "analogy" - the reasonable assumption is that both assumed based on the best knowledge they had (that of being in love and going steady for a while), that there was life support for two. Over the course of the voyage, something changed that perception, and now they are "trapped" in a situation where the costs of leaving are high. Look, it doesn't MATTER, once you are in orbit, that contract with whoever built the capsule SAYS it should work, nor that your partner didn't operate the capsule properly, thus causing the accident. The facts as they ARE, is that there isn't enough air. You can point fingers and wave contracts and agreements about what was owed, what should have happened etc - but it doesn't change anything. You both a faced with the situation of leaving or staying in a hazardous situation. "So then we are left with the idea that someone can just leave the space capsule. Of course they can. But it comes at a cost. The cost for many is that you will never ever have the same relationship with their children again."Yes. This is what I said. The risk or certainty of losing other relationships, as well as the rest of the costs I laid out are apparent. Usually for BOTH parties. Only it's not "just" leave the capsule, as you have put it - implying that it's easy. No, it's more like Sandra Bullock in "Gravity" where you are taking a desperate and terrifying shot at changing a losing proposition, at great personal risk. Your partner isn't fine. They are also in a sexless marriage. In their narrative, THEY are the hero who chose not to break up the marriage over sex. They recognize all the same other benefits to marriage that you recognize. The difference is that you desire YOUR PARTNER, and that your partner DOESN'T desire you. If your partner was required to service a person, or wince their way through a daily insemination from someone they aren't attracted to, then there might be an ILIASM equivalent board entitled, "I submit myself to daily ravaging from someone I'm not attracted to so I can see my children". But that's not the way our laws and social mores tend to work. No one here looks at the choice to leave as appealing. That's why this board is called "I LIVE IN a sexless marriage" rather than "I easily left a sexless marriage" - which really wouldn't need a support group, right? I definitely wouldn't want to be in a relationship where my partner submitted to me ravaging her every day or night. I personally seem to have a different view to you and maybe others but in my situation, I believe my W's attitude towards sex is very complacent. It is not that she can't have and enjoy sex, it is not they we aren't in love, it is not that she doesn't desire meat all, it is that she is fine and dandy without sex. She can take it or leave it and her happiness is unaffected. Hence the reason it happens but only when she really fancies it that night. She is comfortable to lower the oxygen level and leave it. Now just because a person is comfortable without, does NOT automatically mean they are uncomfortable with. My W confirmed this herself during a previous conversation. Our situations may very well be significantly different to be fair hence why we have these differing opinions but I think (I don't know for sure) that it is actually far more common for someone living in a predominantly sexless marriage, to be so because one person of the 2 are just fine not to bother with sex very often. I am not a natural romantic. I get the romance right by making effort and putting thought in to what is important to my wife. I am not the perfect romantic but I have improved significantly and I continue to try and improve. I would be perfectly fine to lower the romance effort but I know that it would affect my W's feeling of being special. Therefore I choose not to lower the effort I make. I choose to consider what is important to her as being important to us. No one wants to ravage their secretly unwilling partner every night. But this example is the most extreme type of example and is a World away from asking or hoping your partner will willingly make more effort. |
|
|
|
Post by greatcoastal on Aug 15, 2017 11:27:55 GMT -5
I like both of your analogies!
To apocrypha, when you say, " the difference is that you DESIRE YOUR partner,and that your partner DOESN'T desire you."
I immediately want to put a little disclaimer on the end of that. ( or anyone else).
After decades of going through the ordeal and hearing such devastating words like, " I don't see the need for it, It's not important to me, I don't think I'll ever be ready for that again!"
Then watching her actions. Blowing her self up with food, more and more control over teens having or showing any independence. Having zero social life, except for one or two surface relationships with other woman who share the same philosophy. I strongly side with my therapist, "there won't be another man in her life, she's not going to be interested".
It goes back to ,they DESIRE having someone around to serve them, and fill their needs. Like a maid or a servant, with zero intimacy or sex.
apocrypha , I do like reading about your own situation, how you handled it, how you continue to handle it. Your learning and growing. It gives me guidance about what else is "out their" over the horizon.
|
|
|
|
Post by Apocrypha on Aug 15, 2017 12:54:46 GMT -5
I definitely wouldn't want to be in a relationship where my partner submitted to me ravaging her every day or night. Yes, and that is because the partner you envision is one you desire, or are at least indifferent to. But what if it was someone you are averse to, sexually. Close your eyes. Think of your mother. Your sister. Think of the boss you respect but aren't attracted to, or your work husband/wife who you have lunch with and enjoy their company, but who you simply aren't into. Think of someone you know or work with with whom you are absolutely not attracted to sexually. Now, imagine that person requiring your sexual acquiescence every day, or you lose your family, your house, your friends and long term dreams. Consider the thought that the relationship you have with a partner isn't a sexual one anymore, but yet you still consider yourself married. (agreed, you had a wedding, but are you married in a lived, practical sense?) Consider the thought that your partner ALSO shares the same view - that you are married, despite the absence of attraction. You can love someone and still tend to their bodily needs. I love both my children. When they were babies, I wiped their asses several times a day, and did so lovingly (though with my shirt up over my nose). It doesn't mean I wanted it, and if they never pooped, I wouldn't bloody well have missed it. Is attending to someone's bodily needs what you are looking for? Or the desire and whatever flows from that. It doesn't mean there isn't love, if there isn't attraction, necessarily. But we aren't necessarily talking about love - we are talking about marriage. So, what defines a marriage, as opposed to, say, best case - an amicable ex marriage? Which do you actually have? Yes, yes. I've heard this many times from the divorced women I've dated and banged six ways to Sunday. "I had lost all interest in sex." I heard it from my own wife/ex-wife, even as she had two boyfriends. The power of self-deluding bullshit is pretty strong. "I just see each of them once in a while, less than once a month." (still quite a bit more than she ever was with me - and now verging on 3 years running, from LITERALLY the day after we separated and she posted her singles ad, which I saw). There's a powerful incentive to believe it- seems nicer than admitting the truth. And, from the perspective of someone who BELIEVES in the marriage and offers up what they think is unsatisfied monogamy (though really is celibacy), I'm sure feels to the refuser that they are paying their due for the benefits of marriage. Sex is what you have with your partner in a marriage, and they don't desire their partner, so they believe they don't desire sex. If they don't cheat, there's no way to validate or challenge the hypothesis. But lift the expectation of monogamy, and a switch gets flipped. Suddenly the libido returns. Just not with their partner is all. Let me put it this way. Your partner is AWARE that the marriage is on the line. He/she still won't fuck you. Forget what they say. Look to what they DO and the consequences or risks. Does that sound like they don't care one way or another about the sex? Seems to me it's pretty goddam important for that person NOT to have sex with you. If it was just, "sure, whatever" - I can tell you as a (now) single person, I've agreed to "why not, what the fuck?" a few times to women I wasn't necessarily all that attracted to because we were close enough to the same page. |
|
