|
|
Post by merrygoround on Sept 21, 2017 0:32:00 GMT -5
Totally agree, allworkandnoplay. Unfortunately, there was never any compromise on the table. There was never any hint of other intimate activities instead - because he had everything just the way he wanted it,leaving me to "why chasing" for so many years. And yes....all the psychological shit that follows. I think it's true of this group in particular that being empathetic we would have tried anything and everything for just a few crumbs. But there has to come a point when you do face the truth and try and make peace with it - wherever that leads you. |
|
|
|
Post by DryCreek on Sept 21, 2017 10:35:41 GMT -5
One of the major problems is that the LL partner is too often see by society as the "victim". Outsourcing, divorce, even just plain old fights over sex are seen by many as the fault of the HL partner. I think societal views are a huge element of the root problem. There are no social repercussions today for failing to be a "good spouse", and quite the opposite for anyone who pursues sex - while this doesn't itself create sexlessness, it makes it exceedingly convenient to adopt a mindset of "I don't feel like it, and there's nothing to compel me otherwise." Taken another way, it's general knowledge that fitness is important to quality and longevity of life. But society doesn't demand good fitness; it demands acceptance and tolerance and accommodates poor fitness. So while many people own exercise equipment and may even pay monthly for gym memberships, only a fraction of them take it all the way from "knowing what's needed" to having good intent to actually following through on a reliable basis. The only motivator is onesself, and for many (most?) folks that's not enough. |
|
|
|
Post by rejected101 on Sept 21, 2017 11:23:51 GMT -5
One of the major problems is that the LL partner is too often see by society as the "victim". Outsourcing, divorce, even just plain old fights over sex are seen by many as the fault of the HL partner. I think societal views are a huge element of the root problem. There are no social repercussions today for failing to be a "good spouse", and quite the opposite for anyone who pursues sex - while this doesn't itself create sexlessness, it makes it exceedingly convenient to adopt a mindset of "I don't feel like it, and there's nothing to compel me otherwise." Taken another way, it's general knowledge that fitness is important to quality and longevity of life. But society doesn't demand good fitness; it demands acceptance and tolerance and accommodates poor fitness. So while many people own exercise equipment and may even pay monthly for gym memberships, only a fraction of them take it all the way from "knowing what's needed" to having good intent to actually following through on a reliable basis. The only motivator is onesself, and for many (most?) folks that's not enough. Perfectly put. To be honest I posed this question because in my case I think this is a large percentage of the problem. Despite knowing that the marriage will blossom from regular intimacy, she chooses not to because she is comfortable not to. That does not necessarily mean she would be uncomfortable to, simply comfortable not to. I was left without a voice for a very long time because I knew that society doesn't except or tolerate people who pursue sex. That would make me a deviant or give me some other very negative label. |
|
|
|
Post by h on Sept 21, 2017 11:39:41 GMT -5
I think societal views are a huge element of the root problem. There are no social repercussions today for failing to be a "good spouse", and quite the opposite for anyone who pursues sex - while this doesn't itself create sexlessness, it makes it exceedingly convenient to adopt a mindset of "I don't feel like it, and there's nothing to compel me otherwise." Taken another way, it's general knowledge that fitness is important to quality and longevity of life. But society doesn't demand good fitness; it demands acceptance and tolerance and accommodates poor fitness. So while many people own exercise equipment and may even pay monthly for gym memberships, only a fraction of them take it all the way from "knowing what's needed" to having good intent to actually following through on a reliable basis. The only motivator is onesself, and for many (most?) folks that's not enough. Perfectly put. To be honest I posed this question because in my case I think this is a large percentage of the problem. Despite knowing that the marriage will blossom from regular intimacy, she chooses not to because she is comfortable not to. That does not necessarily mean she would be uncomfortable to, simply comfortable not to. I was left without a voice for a very long time because I knew that society doesn't except or tolerate people who pursue sex. That would make me a deviant or give me some other very negative label. Agree with you there. If/when I decide to get out, I will almost certainly earn myself a derogatory label like that. I live in a very rural area with conservative values. I'm in the process of preparing to become a pariah. |
|
|
|
Post by Apocrypha on Sept 21, 2017 12:14:25 GMT -5
You don't see too many stories in here of a refuser spouse being able to raise their sexual desire level (in any sustainable sense) I did. I think that's partly why I hung in so long and tried so many angles at "fixing" things when the tables turned. I find it incredibly difficult to write about the mental/emotional process it took to do that, though, in any practical way. Maybe I should give that another kick at the can though, even if it's not perfect. To the OP's point though, I think it might help to offer more context. Are we talking about sexual desire irrespective of a specific partner, or within the context of an existing relationship. I'd warrant that in either case, it's harder to change one's disinclination than it is to act or behave in a manner that is not aligned with it. If I don't enjoy chewing fat, it's hard for me to decide to chew fat. When I asked how my buddy who doesn't like seafood experiences it, he said, "imagine cutting off a thick chunk of fat from the side of a steak and putting it in your mouth and chewing it." The thought made me cringe. And yet, when I opened myself to my partner, the experience or process was very much a choice - or at least that's the closest description I can think of. |
|
|
|
Post by shamwow on Sept 21, 2017 14:23:18 GMT -5
I think that there is another option. Not for everyone and not in all situations. Communication and compromise. Does it always have to be penetrative intercourse? If my health makes erections hard (see what I did there?) Would oral sex be a viable substitute? If I cant do that, can I use my hands? If I can't do that, can I hold my partner as she masturbates, whispering into her ear how beautiful she is and how wonderful? Would that be enough? I'm not sure. It would certainly be enough for me. I would love to have regular oral and manual sexual encounters instead. I'm aware that there are health issues that make penetrative sex difficult for my W. I have told her many times that I would be ok with alternative activities. The problem is her willingness to perform those activities. I'm completely ok with compromise. I'm more than willing to meet her halfway. If only she was willing to do the same... Interesting question... wewbwb asked the hypothetical equation of what level of compromise would be acceptable. h reponded that these non-penetrative compromises would be enough for him, but his wife was unwilling to meet him even there. Ol' shammy here was in the same boat as h. The biggest difference is that after a couple years of indicating a compromise would be acceptable, there was no change. As a result, ol' shammy left and no longer needs to compromise with a partner who really doesn't want me (although she loved the concept of me). Tomorrow, Saturday, and Sunday this week will be a no-compromise zone with a beautiful woman (looking at you ballofconfusion). It will also be a no-compromise zone for her as well. In retrospect, I'm really glad now that my ex-wife didn't compromise. It would have forced me to do likewise with someone who really didn't desire me. Desire is there or it isn't. It isn't something you can negotiate / compromise on. As Mark Manson says...Fuck Yes! or No. |
|
|
|
Post by baza on Sept 21, 2017 22:10:03 GMT -5
In this group, the refusing spouses preferred level of sexual engagement with you is "none".
Not "once a week"
Not "once a fortnight"
Not "once a month"
Not "once a quarter"
Not "once a year"
"None". Nothing. Zip. Zero.
That is the refusive spouses preferred level of sexual engagement with you.
That is what they prefer.
I would speculate that if your refusive spouse had a natural preference for sexual engagement with you at a rate of "once a month", then you'd most likely not even be a member of this group. You'd likely just be going along with that.
Point I am getting to is - that if the refusive spouses preferred level of sexual engagement with you is "none", then there is nothing to base a compromise on.
There is no *base-line*, and thus, there is no solid base to compromise from.
Now, if you wanted to establish what the refusive spouses natural preference for sexual engagement with you is, you can readily establish that.
Cease and desist from approaching the refusive spouse for sex. Stop it completely.
Then, note how many times you have sex - at their instigation, over a week, a fortnight, a month, a quarter, a year.
This frequency will show you the refusive spouses natural preference for sexual engagement with you.
For the vast majority of this group, that frequency figure will be "none".
Now, consider this.
If the refusive spouses natural preference for sexual engagement with you is "none", on what basis would you figure that a compromise could be accomplished to deliver - lets say - 12 roots a year ?
12 roots a year is a monumental task to set from a preferred base of "none".
|
|
|
|
Post by rejected101 on Sept 22, 2017 3:03:20 GMT -5
In this group, the refusing spouses preferred level of sexual engagement with you is "none". Not "once a week" Not "once a fortnight" Not "once a month" Not "once a quarter" Not "once a year" "None". Nothing. Zip. Zero. That is the refusive spouses preferred level of sexual engagement with you. That is what they prefer. I would speculate that if your refusive spouse had a natural preference for sexual engagement with you at a rate of "once a month", then you'd most likely not even be a member of this group. You'd likely just be going along with that. Point I am getting to is - that if the refusive spouses preferred level of sexual engagement with you is "none", then there is nothing to base a compromise on. There is no *base-line*, and thus, there is no solid base to compromise from. Now, if you wanted to establish what the refusive spouses natural preference for sexual engagement with you is, you can readily establish that. Cease and desist from approaching the refusive spouse for sex. Stop it completely. Then, note how many times you have sex - at their instigation, over a week, a fortnight, a month, a quarter, a year. This frequency will show you the refusive spouses natural preference for sexual engagement with you. For the vast majority of this group, that frequency figure will be "none". Now, consider this. If the refusive spouses natural preference for sexual engagement with you is "none", on what basis would you figure that a compromise could be accomplished to deliver - lets say - 12 roots a year ? 12 roots a year is a monumental task to set from a preferred base of "none". I think it must depend on the individual, their age and their sex drive etc. For example, in your late twenties/early thirties I would describe 1 sexual encounter per month as basically sexless. For some, once per month may be perfectly fine, for others it may be hell on earth. I totally get that if the offer on the table is simply zero times per month then there is no compromise to be had. So what defines someone as being in a sexless marriage? I would guess if you consider yourself to be in a sexless marriage, you are in one. |
|
|
|
Post by brian on Sept 22, 2017 5:16:41 GMT -5
In this group, the refusing spouses preferred level of sexual engagement with you is "none". Not "once a week" Not "once a fortnight" Not "once a month" Not "once a quarter" Not "once a year" "None". Nothing. Zip. Zero. That is the refusive spouses preferred level of sexual engagement with you. That is what they prefer. I would speculate that if your refusive spouse had a natural preference for sexual engagement with you at a rate of "once a month", then you'd most likely not even be a member of this group. You'd likely just be going along with that. Point I am getting to is - that if the refusive spouses preferred level of sexual engagement with you is "none", then there is nothing to base a compromise on. There is no *base-line*, and thus, there is no solid base to compromise from. Now, if you wanted to establish what the refusive spouses natural preference for sexual engagement with you is, you can readily establish that. Cease and desist from approaching the refusive spouse for sex. Stop it completely. Then, note how many times you have sex - at their instigation, over a week, a fortnight, a month, a quarter, a year. This frequency will show you the refusive spouses natural preference for sexual engagement with you. For the vast majority of this group, that frequency figure will be "none". Now, consider this. If the refusive spouses natural preference for sexual engagement with you is "none", on what basis would you figure that a compromise could be accomplished to deliver - lets say - 12 roots a year ? 12 roots a year is a monumental task to set from a preferred base of "none". I think it must depend on the individual, their age and their sex drive etc. For example, in your late twenties/early thirties I would describe 1 sexual encounter per month as basically sexless. For some, once per month may be perfectly fine, for others it may be hell on earth. I totally get that if the offer on the table is simply zero times per month then there is no compromise to be had. So what defines someone as being in a sexless marriage? I would guess if you consider yourself to be in a sexless marriage, you are in one. Speaking strictly in clinical terms, a sexless marriage is defined as 10 or fewer times per year. |
|
|
|
Post by rejected101 on Sept 22, 2017 7:01:37 GMT -5
I think it must depend on the individual, their age and their sex drive etc. For example, in your late twenties/early thirties I would describe 1 sexual encounter per month as basically sexless. For some, once per month may be perfectly fine, for others it may be hell on earth. I totally get that if the offer on the table is simply zero times per month then there is no compromise to be had. So what defines someone as being in a sexless marriage? I would guess if you consider yourself to be in a sexless marriage, you are in one. Speaking strictly in clinical terms, a sexless marriage is defined as 10 or fewer times per year. I remember reading that somewhere too. I wonder why it's 10 or fewer as opposed to any other number? Seems reasonable though because I don't believe sexless has to be no sex. |
|
|
|
Post by ironhamster on Sept 22, 2017 8:04:11 GMT -5
Speaking strictly in clinical terms, a sexless marriage is defined as 10 or fewer times per year. I remember reading that somewhere too. I wonder why it's 10 or fewer as opposed to any other number? Seems reasonable though because I don't believe sexless has to be no sex. Ten is the number I've heard, also, but there is so much more to it. If my wife had lost her ability to have sex, but had a strong drive, we could have no sex but enough intimacy that it could keep me happy. As it is, I am miserable. We've had sex over ten times, all under duress on her part, as always, and never with any positive feedback. I'm being generous, there. No amount or type of stimulation, orgasm(s) or not, is a good experience for her. She does not like it, and I am done trying with her. |
|
|
|
Post by rejected101 on Sept 22, 2017 8:42:48 GMT -5
I remember reading that somewhere too. I wonder why it's 10 or fewer as opposed to any other number? Seems reasonable though because I don't believe sexless has to be no sex. Ten is the number I've heard, also, but there is so much more to it. If my wife had lost her ability to have sex, but had a strong drive, we could have no sex but enough intimacy that it could keep me happy. As it is, I am miserable. We've had sex over ten times, all under duress on her part, as always, and never with any positive feedback. I'm being generous, there. No amount or type of stimulation, orgasm(s) or not, is a good experience for her. She does not like it, and I am done trying with her. Agreed. It's a very complex scenario which can be influenced by ones age, gender, social setting, weight, body composition and much much more. It would be fair to say that for one person on this forum, having sex 10 times a year would be their perfect compromise and would see them settled and comfortable. Where as for another on this forum, due to no fault of their own, 10 would be their nightmare. I know I was completely dissatisfied to a point of being very unhappy when me and my wife when down to those levels for a period of years. Had it of been no sex, I most definitely would have left. |
|
|
|
Post by DryCreek on Sept 22, 2017 15:38:21 GMT -5
Speaking strictly in clinical terms, a sexless marriage is defined as 10 or fewer times per year. I remember reading that somewhere too. I wonder why it's 10 or fewer as opposed to any other number? Seems reasonable though because I don't believe sexless has to be no sex. I don't think there's any science to picking that number. It just gives a common point of reference and is so low that people won't argue it. For a lot of folks here, intimacy is broken way before the frequency gets that low. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2017 16:33:47 GMT -5
I think that there is another option. Not for everyone and not in all situations. Communication and compromise. Does it always have to be penetrative intercourse? If my health makes erections hard (see what I did there?) Would oral sex be a viable substitute? If I cant do that, can I use my hands? If I can't do that, can I hold my partner as she masturbates, whispering into her ear how beautiful she is and how wonderful? Would that be enough? I'm not sure. If Mr. Kat had been willing to do those things, our story might have been very different. |
|
|
|
Post by wewbwb on Sept 22, 2017 16:44:44 GMT -5
If Mr. Kat had been willing to do those things, our story might have been very different.  ![]()  |
|
