|
Post by Apocrypha on Apr 20, 2020 10:28:52 GMT -5
When celibacy and the dysfunction that causes it become entrenched in a marital conflict, a frequent result is that "we're working on it" becomes a protracted affair - spanning years or decades.
This is the period in which all the usual and intuitive advice around restoring intimacy is followed. Some common examples: - "scented candles" - do more/all the household work - your own duties and hers or his - self-improvement - date night - save the marriage vacation - therapy - scheduled sex - early bedtimes/TV out of the room - open discussion/ fights - no discussion "zero pressure" months/seasons / "let's just cuddle" -etc.
As you proceed across months, seasons, years and decades, trying these methods or rotating back to them across years, the default state of your marriage is celibacy.
For those who desire intimacy with their partners, the state of physical and emotional abandonment in the marriage feels like a ticking bomb. They feel like "Unless something changes and intimacy is restored, the marriage and everything associated with it is threatened, because this isn't something I can do forever."
An unavoidable product of this situation is that while the couple is "working on it", often over the course of years - the default state of marital sexuality remains celibacy.
Structurally, for the partner who seeks intimacy, "working on it" becomes indistinguishable from a delay tactic - stalling the consequence of ending the intimacy-devoid marriage. The partner who wants sex with his/her spouse ends up agreeing to carry an unwanted burden - a price they are clear that they don't wish to pay forever.
But, for the partner who wants to avoid sexual intimacy with a partner whom they don't desire sexually, there is no consequence to remaining in a state of perpetual "working on it". The goal becomes to attend to the state of the desirous partner's patience and sense of hope or "progress" that things are happening, while maintaining celibacy.
In hundreds of these stories on ILIASM and in my own marriage, the typical result follows the structural expectation - with celibacy maintained with the least possible sexual involvement for the longest time, until the marriage ends. During this period, the averse partner claims they are "working on it" - but the consequence of the delay is born by the one partner who emphatically doesn't wish to bear the burden, while the averse partner has an intention to keep the marriage despite wishing to avoid sex with the partner they don't want sexually.
Rather than filibustering, I'm a fan of switching the burden. What would happen if "working on it" took place after separation, instigated by the intimately abandoned partner (if that's their true intention)?
If the sexually averse partner wishes to keep the household marital benefits associated with marriage running, then suddenly the burden and time pressure is pushed back to them and shared. The longer the separation endures, the more time and opportunity arises for the sexually abandoned partner to find a different partner, or a more fulfilling single life. If the marriage is truly desired, the averse partner should come to the truth of how they feel quickly - and either divorce and find a partner who they actually want (or be alone), or actually do the self-work they need to do to sort themselves out - but on their own clock rather than on yours.
In effect, if they are the most distant from the marriage and they want it to recover, then THEY carry the ticking bomb, rather than the sexually abandoned partner. I suspect that this would increase the scale of effort considerably toward realizing the truth of their marriage and prospects, and acting accordingly.
|
|
|
Post by northstarmom on Apr 20, 2020 11:22:36 GMT -5
Awesome idea that would be of great use to the refused brave enough to implement it.
|
|
|
Post by ironhamster on Apr 20, 2020 20:01:16 GMT -5
That state of "working on it" with forced celibacy can be flipped around.
Instead of saying something like, "I am going to wait for [insert latest avoidant excuse here] to be over...", say, "Let me know when [insert latest avoidant excuse here] is over, because, until it is over I will be seeking the intimacy I need elsewhere.
My refuser liked the control aspect, and I suspect that is universal. This ends that, and gives the refused control of the situation.
|
|
|
Post by baza on Apr 20, 2020 21:15:39 GMT -5
Liked the post Brother Apocrypha . The idea of a "trial separation" (sometimes referred to in here as "zipcode therapy") doesn't get a real lot of airplay. It is worth considering. What tends to happen however is, that you might put forward such a proposition, but your spouse doesn't want a bar of it, and immediately escalates the situation by saying something along the lines of - "if that's your attitude we may as well call it quits right now" - in an attempt to torpedo the issue before it gets out of hand and out of the refusers control. You need to be prepared for such a response, and be prepared to up the ante too, and be prepared to leave. Like Sister northstarmom says - "Awesome idea that would be of great use to the refused brave enough to implement it" The logic behind the "separation option" is very sound ... - the spouses take a break from each other - they individually sort their own respective shit out - they come back together and take a fearless inventory of where they are at individually and collectively - they redefine the relationship based on the factual situation. That might be parting ways, it might be reconstructing the relationship. Where that process tends to fail is that one of the spouses (or even both) is not prepared to do the hard difficult work of sorting their own shit out ... and that spouse might be you just as easily as being your spouse. In my deal when I left, my missus was under the impression we were separating for a couple of months and would then resume where we left off. For my part, it was never a "trial separation". Once out, I had no intention of going back, so I put no effort what-so-ever into "working on it" (whatever the hell that actually means) I concentrated on sorting my own shit out .... there was plenty of it !! Whether my missus was "working on it" (whatever the hell that actually means) I don't know. I speculate that neither of us were terribly committed to the process.
|
|
|
Post by mirrororchid on Apr 21, 2020 6:35:49 GMT -5
When celibacy and the dysfunction that causes it... That phrase / hypothesis seems to be part of the same "candles and date night" rap, though. Dysfunction was there before the celibacy, but sex happened anyway, right? (Except for those who "saved themselves", I guess.) What couple has zero dysfunction? Celibacy, I dare say, can cause dysfunction, or at the least aggravate it to the point of causing threats to the union. Of course, if intimacy can fix a marriage on the rocks, then the therapists don't get paid, do they? An involuntarily celibate spouse starts looking for reasons to leave. The incentive to find solutions weakens with time and draining effort. Dysfunction may worsen. Growing indifference may introduce new habits the refuser doesn't like, causing resentment and even lower attraction potential. Lather, rinse, repeat. If a refuser believes (or merely cynically likes the idea) that celibacy has a cause that must be fixed first, that's justification of the delay you speak of. Like your reversal suggests, you can "work on" all the stuff that makes the refuser think is stopping them from being intimate... while being intimate. In fact, why not celebrate milestones of progress? "I took the garbage out without being asked! Lets hit the sheets!"
|
|
|
Post by Apocrypha on Apr 21, 2020 9:49:11 GMT -5
When celibacy and the dysfunction that causes it... That phrase / hypothesis seems to be part of the same "candles and date night" rap, though. Dysfunction was there before the celibacy, but sex happened anyway, right? (Except for those who "saved themselves", I guess.) What couple has zero dysfunction? Celibacy, I dare say, can cause dysfunction, or at the least aggravate it to the point of causing threats to the union I'm not sure I'm understanding your note. People have sexual desire. They have it irrespective of having any partner at all. Often early in relationship, that desire is exercised between two partners. At some point - sexual expression with that partner ends - for a reason. The reason might be known or might not be known, but there is a reason. Usually that reason is some form of dysfunction that has gone unresolved and reached a such a point of disconnection and aversion that a partner would sooner choose celibacy than have sex with a person who they don't see as a sexual partner any longer. I don't think anyone made a claim - I certainly didn't - that zero dysfunction is a possible goal or that sexual couples have no dysfunction. This isn't a light switch. That's a different claim than the one I made - which is that a person loses their attraction to a partner because of some form of marital dysfunction (with a loose definition of dysfunction - an abnormality or impairment or deviation from an expected norm in a way that is regarded as bad). Being married to a person who you don't like, or who you don't see as a sexual partner, or being married at all if you don't want to be married - are all dysfunctions - big ones especially if left unresolved. Not talking about them or being self-aware enough to identify them is further dysfunction. Big enough to change the way one thinks about a partner or the relationship itself (with the result that they no longer qualify as a viable sexual partner).
|
|
|
Post by Apocrypha on Apr 21, 2020 10:14:39 GMT -5
What tends to happen however is, that you might put forward such a proposition, but your spouse doesn't want a bar of it, and immediately escalates the situation by saying something along the lines of - "if that's your attitude we may as well call it quits right now" - in an attempt to torpedo the issue before it gets out of hand and out of the refusers control. You need to be prepared for such a response, and be prepared to up the ante too, and be prepared to leave. [...] Where that process tends to fail is that one of the spouses (or even both) is not prepared to do the hard difficult work of sorting their own shit out ... and that spouse might be you just as easily as being your spouse. That's the gist I was shooting for when I said "the truth of your relationship" rather than "get your marriage back on track." It's not a failure if the truth - which is that the averse partner intends to filibuster for another 10 years while you get older - is found out now, rather than in 10 years. The averse partner has already made an informed choice - to accept celibacy (with someone they don't want) - to keep the benefits associated with marriage. While I cannot vouch for the efficacy, marital counselors have a process they call "therapeutic separation" - and this process is different from the guidance they offer in structuring a regular separation (with intent to divorce, or to remain separated). Regardless of whether one is daring enough to quit waiting in a marriage for the other team to show up on the field, I think it's helpful in addressing one of the most common tells I've seen on this board - which is to pay attention to who is carrying the burden of changing. How many of us have ended up scheduling their averse partner's doctor appointments, checking on the status of their testosterone supplements and boner pills, pored through porn search history to find a clue, read the kama sutra and bdsm guides backwards and forwards to get new skills, purchased stacks of marital help books, read them and tried to stick them under our partners' noses? That's because the abandoned partner is carrying the bomb. "Sure, honey, I'm totally into you and we just had sex last month didn't we?" - that kind of cheap talk nonsense dissipates fast when a real consequence is attached. If the averse partner values the relationship, they need to work to get it back. Nothing ever happens, until something actually happens. Totally on point. Because in the "trial separation" you handed your bomb to her. If she wanted to restore or to create a marital relationship with you, that was now her problem to solve, instead of you trying to change the way she felt about you. She let the timer run out. Who knows, maybe there was a realization, or some agenda or behavior or some kind of offer that she could have made that would have demonstrated her full commitment and feelings for you if she had it and if she exercised it with you. Maybe you would have found it convincing. But that did not occur and so you came to the practical truth of your relationship earlier than if you had continued to try resolving her aversion to you (if you were).
|
|
|
Post by greatcoastal on Apr 21, 2020 13:56:57 GMT -5
That state of "working on it" with forced celibacy can be flipped around. Instead of saying something like, "I am going to wait for [insert latest avoidant excuse here] to be over...", say, "Let me know when [insert latest avoidant excuse here] is over, because, until it is over I will be seeking the intimacy I need elsewhere. My refuser liked the control aspect, and I suspect that is universal. This ends that, and gives the refused control of the situation. I will always remember the day "I pulled the pin" on the bomb (grenade) ...so to speak. Me: I would like for us to start having sex again, once a week? Her (the now ex): Once a week??? NO! I don't think I will EVER be ready for that! (end of conversation) There was many other important parts to this conversation, that day. I also ended up having to 'defend' myself to my teen adult/almost adult children, by telling them about their mothers behavior and reactions. Sadly their brainwashed image of "dad's just mad and angry," tends to dismiss all of their mothers words and actions...sigh. Just be ready for the dropping of one bomb to start WWIII. Total detachment ,in some of these ILIASM is the best answer.
|
|
|
Post by csl on Apr 21, 2020 21:37:41 GMT -5
You need to be prepared for such a response, and be prepared to up the ante too, and be prepared to leave. I know a guy who did just that very thing. He had an A-ha! experience that showed him how his wife viewed him as a walking wallet, and so stopped all the pampering that he had done over the years. After two-three weeks of minimal care, she came to him steaming, and he told her that he was doing just as she did to him and that if she continued with just the minimum, so would he. She said, "If that's the case, I want a divorce!" He said, "Fine," and got the newspaper. She asked what he was doing and he told her that he was going to find her an apartment to move into. She backed down right quick, and asked what he wanted to do. He said that they needed to go to counseling and work on the marriage or split. She acceded to his conditions. This was about 10 years ago. I have lost touch with him, but as of 5 years ago, he was reporting that his marriage had turned around. -------- As to the "working on it" promise, I have written a few posts about "Working" and "What does Better look like" on my blog. (Warning: I write from a religious perspective on my blog, so be forewarned.)
|
|
|
Post by baza on Apr 21, 2020 21:59:02 GMT -5
I reckon that a credible threat to the status quo (as described in Brother csl 's anecdote) will go a long way to bringing an ILIASM deal to resolution .... whatever shape that resolution might take. And I think that that is where a lot of situations here hit the wall. The unhappy spouse is NOT prepared to put the marriage on the line, which essentially means that there is no credible threat to the status quo. It's important in these situations that if you "say" something, you need to be prepared to follow it up with action, otherwise all you'll achieve is to shred your cred, and educate your spouse that your threats are not credible. Of course if you go down this credible threat route, it could blow the marriage up. That's a real risk, and a risk you need to be prepared to take on. OTOH, you might come out the other end in a greatly enhanced marriage. If you are prepared to produce a credible threat, and if you both then put all your cards on the table, and deal with the facts of your unique situation, then you are an excellent chance of bringing your situation to resolution.
|
|
|
Post by ironhamster on Apr 22, 2020 8:55:13 GMT -5
That state of "working on it" with forced celibacy can be flipped around. Instead of saying something like, "I am going to wait for [insert latest avoidant excuse here] to be over...", say, "Let me know when [insert latest avoidant excuse here] is over, because, until it is over I will be seeking the intimacy I need elsewhere. My refuser liked the control aspect, and I suspect that is universal. This ends that, and gives the refused control of the situation. I will always remember the day "I pulled the pin" on the bomb (grenade) ...so to speak. Me: I would like for us to start having sex again, once a week? Her (the now ex): Once a week??? NO! I don't think I will EVER be ready for that! (end of conversation) There was many other important parts to this conversation, that day. I also ended up having to 'defend' myself to my teen adult/almost adult children, by telling them about their mothers behavior and reactions. Sadly their brainwashed image of "dad's just mad and angry," tends to dismiss all of their mothers words and actions...sigh. Just be ready for the dropping of one bomb to start WWIII. Total detachment ,in some of these ILIASM is the best answer. It really does amount to dropping as bomb. Refusers seem to believe they can keep this game up indefinitely. When I suggested that because of the lack of sex we should have sex every day to make up for it, it was by text. She responded with a happy face, and I thought we were finally getting somewhere until it became clear she was being dismissive. Looking back, her lack of caring is so obvious, but in the thick of the relationship I was so hopeful and caring that I was oblivious to the fact that I was being played. But, it takes control away from the refuser. It also exposes the fact that the only reason the relationship is stable is because the refuser is getting what they want and doesn't give a shit about what the refused wants.
|
|
|
Post by northstarmom on Apr 22, 2020 9:42:49 GMT -5
Refusers seem to believe they can keep this game up indefinitely because based on what I've seen on this site, refusers can continue the game forever. Most of the refused who end up on this site will remain in their sexless marriages. After all some people here have not had sex with their mates since the inception of their marriage. Some literally have been married and celibate for decades.
|
|
|
Post by bozodeclowne on Apr 22, 2020 11:06:29 GMT -5
But, it takes control away from the refuser. It also exposes the fact that the only reason the relationship is stable is because the refuser is getting what they want and doesn't give a shit about what the refused wants. But what is it that they are really getting? With few exceptions, the "benefits" any of us bring to a relationship aren't really unique. Why not go and find those things with someone you desire? I can fix anything, provide (hopefully) wise counsel, am an excellent protector and can still make her laugh. Big whoop. That describes millions of others, many of whom presumably do not have the general attitude and self-confidence issues an SM brings. In fact, I've become a bit of a pain always bringing it up, moreso in recent years. Empirically, I can see the latter part of your statement must be true - my wife does not truly care about my wants/needs. I just have a hard time accepting that truth. It wasn't always this way, but has been long enough that I couldn't really pinpoint when the change occurred. That implies things have been bad for her as well. Still, no effort to leave, change the dynamic or even initiate a conversation about any of this. That is left to me.
|
|
|
Post by northstarmom on Apr 22, 2020 11:26:44 GMT -5
bozodeclowne said: "iwth few exceptions, the "benefits" any of us bring to a relationship aren't really unique. Why not go and find those things with someone you desire? "
Maybe they don't desire sex at all or maybe the people they desire can't provide the benefits of marriage such as financial stability, good parenting, or being a person who is highly respected. Their objects of desire may be for a variety of reasons unsuitable as a marital partner. The type of partners refusers want also may have no interest in them.
Your statement also can be made to apply to the refused. Why not go out and establish a marriage or romantic relationship with someone who you desire and who desires you? What benefits of marriage keep you stuck in a sexless one?
|
|
|
Post by notdeadyet on Apr 22, 2020 11:35:34 GMT -5
This may be the most thoughtful thread I've read here to date. Thanks apocrypha for starting the ball rolling with some truly insightful thoughts.
|
|