|
Post by bozodeclowne on Apr 27, 2020 12:02:40 GMT -5
You seem to think it's easy for women to find partners with the attributes you describe. While millions of men may have those attributes, there are many other things that go into compatibility for a marriage or longterm relationship. Even if the woman doesn't want to have sex with the man, she still has to find him not hard on her eyes. She has to enjoy being in his company. HIs finances, age, weight, even smell, friends, interests, values all would be important. And he would have to be attracted to her and want to spend lots of time in her company! For a long term partnership or marriage, he'd have to be willing to be with her (including financially) in sickness and health. Sexual and other types of compatibility also would be important as would interest, values and family considerations. This is why for many men and women in sexless marriages, it seems far easier to stay in their current marriage than to risk being alone or finding an even worse partner. Easy? Perhaps not, but what you are really describing is the same process as seeking any other new relationship. I guess I just have a hard time wrapping my head around the idea that a refuser does not see the possibility of a new, more compatible relationship as "worth" the effort/risk. Especially in the "lost attraction" scenario where things were once pretty good, the refused has made it clear that the lack of intimacy is hurtful/harmful, etc. Who would want to live like that, assuming fabulous wealth/fame/lifestyle was not a factor? That's mostly rhetorical. In my situation, I'm aware there really isn't any answer my wife could give that would be sufficient.
|
|
|
Post by northstarmom on Apr 27, 2020 12:54:17 GMT -5
“ I guess I just have a hard time wrapping my head around the idea that a refuser does not see the possibility of a new, more compatible relationship as "worth" the effort/risk. Especially in the "lost attraction" scenario where things were once pretty good, the refused has made it clear that the lack of intimacy is hurtful/harmful, etc. Who would want to live like that, assuming fabulous wealth/fame/lifestyle was not a factor?”
The refused is the person whom it’s more surprising is not leaving. They are the ones not getting the sex they want. Many also describe themselves feeling depressed, hopeless, and unattractive as a result of the rejection from their partner.
Meanwhile, the refuser is having the sexless marriage that presumably they want with the person they married. They may have no interest in sex or may be getting some on the side. Meanwhile, they get to stay in the house that presumably they like, enjoy the same budget, keep the same friends, and get whatever other support their partner provides: child care, domestic chores, companionship. In many cases, the refused also pampers the refuser, catering to their wishes in a variety of ways.
As for refuser’s caring about the suffering sexual rejection is causing their mates - why should they when their mates don’t care enough about themselves or unwanted celibacy to leave? To refusers, the issue couldn’t be that important or their spouses would leave. It’s also possible that the only real love in the relationship is the refused’s love for their refuser. We read lots here about refusers who are very kind and supportive to their mates but get nothing in return, not even simple nonsexual kindness or consideration.
|
|
|
Post by Apocrypha on Apr 27, 2020 13:38:09 GMT -5
^ Neither partner is getting the sex they want.
|
|
|
Post by northstarmom on Apr 27, 2020 13:59:39 GMT -5
Apocrypha: no sex with their mate may be what the refuser wants and is getting. The refuser may not like or desire sex at all. They also could be outsourcing and getting great sex from a partner who is unavailable for a committed relationship or whom the refuser feels is appropriate for sex only.
|
|
|
Post by Apocrypha on Apr 27, 2020 14:20:24 GMT -5
Apocrypha: no sex with their mate may be what the refuser wants and is getting. The refuser may not like or desire sex at all. They also could be outsourcing and getting great sex from a partner who is unavailable for a committed relationship or whom the refuser feels is appropriate for sex only People generally avoid sex with people who they are not attracted to, or who they don't see as a sexual partner for various reasons. As such, they are also in a celibate relationship because they don't really have an option to have the sex they want within the marriage. So, yes, they may achieve their goal to endure the marriage while avoiding sex with their partner. Just as their abandoned partner may also be achieving a goal of retaining the marriage (so far), while being celibate. Both cases are a compromise though, involving an enormous effort. They aren't realistically a picture of a refuser "getting what they want". Not anymore than a sexually abandoned spouse "getting what they want" through the continuance of the belief in a married relationship. They each are constantly undoing each other's knots, in a state of perpetual "working on it". Note - this way of empathizing with a refuser isn't intended to be nice to them or to let them off any kind of hook. It's more intended to help whoever is here come to grips with their situation and what their prospects are of some kind of restoration to a sexually fulfilling life with each other. Because while we've all experienced falling in like and in love with someone with whom we have a unique attraction, chances are many of us have also experienced something that causes us to LOSE an attraction. And I'll bet once you know what you know that makes you unattracted to someone - that's pretty much impossible to get back. To the point of the thread, our family counsellor, on a particularly difficult session that seemed enormously hopeless, each had us secretly write down the amount of effort we each put in to showing up and maintaining our marriage, and then reveal. We each listed ourselves about 90% vs the other at 10%. He said this was always the answer, across hundreds or thousands of couples. The point was lost on me at the time (his style of therapy was to hold up a mirror and observe how we each felt - but he would never draw a conclusion). In hindsight - it's perfectly obvious that to exist in that state for so long, we were pulling in different directions. Me, closer to her. Her, trying to make space. Now, it might seem to everyone here, and to me at the time, "Hey dumb dumb - if you want to have a marriage, then you need to be closer - close enough to at least have an intimate relationship!" But that point ignores the glaring fact hidden in plain site - which is that she doesn't WANT an intimate relationship with me because she doesn't feel that way about me. There's no way she can simply change her mind on how she feels. Therefore if she wants to keep the marriage or the semblance of it and the shared belief in it - she needs to find a way to make maximum space - to be a single person within the marriage. Thus, she needs to endure celibacy, or she needs to find her own activities and separate friends and life, and opt out of my family events, and make her own physical space and outings, and eventually sexual outlets - as a way of coping with a marriage to someone she's trapped with. And, to the point of the thread, because you can't MAKE someone have sex with you, or want to have sex with you - the fact that you are married and celibate gives the advantage to the abandoning spouse to continue "working on it" for as long as they can, while staying married. Calling time, cutting bait, calling for a split and then choosing whether it's just a separation for a divorce, or a therapeutic separation in which each half of a couple sorts out whether they want to show up to create an actual marriage - changes the dynamic. If the abandoning spouse wants to choose the marriage, then he she has to actually opt in.
|
|
|
Post by mirrororchid on Apr 28, 2020 6:48:15 GMT -5
I would invoke the Coolidge Effect in suggesting that no reason at all is needed for sexual interest to wane/vanish other than biology. (which is, admittedly, a reason) That said, your comment made me think that psychological factors could surely affect such natural inclinations to reduce sexuality towards one's partner. I think the "Coolidge Effect" is a tale people use to convince themselves of the futility of acting to resolve an unsatisfying relationship lifestyle, because it would be equally unhappy with someone else, and inevitable. Based on my personal experience in marriage, and based on encountering literally dozens of women who thought they were frigid but later found themselves to be adventurously and robustly sexual (once outside of their primary relationship), I'd say that's largely overblown. I could agree people could use it that way to justify not addressing marital issues. Especially earlier in a dysfunctional marriage. I don't know that it is widespread knowledge though. A "tale" suggests something commonly relayed whereas acknowledgement of humans as animal is something of a subject of widespread denial. Refusers may take great offense to suggest that they are acting like animals by NOT being sexual with long time intimate partners. They feel celibacy is a cerebral exercise or self-restraint, an admirable choice of behavior. Conflicts arise and get resolved throughout marriage. Early one, midstream and forty years in. Reduction in sexual congress is surely anecdotally ubiquitous, suggesting more than just a grain of truth. What lies behind this reduction. The hectic chaos of raising a family? Maybe, but childless couples experience the rolling boil-to-simmer phenomenon commonly enough. And what explains the sudden energy that your wife and other previously subdued people experience upon meeting a new partner. The absence of the resentments can be part of it but is it far fetched to guess that biological novelty is not exclusive to the rest of the animal kingdom in which frenzied sex is confirmed? The "Coolidge Effect" being used to explain away drifting apart caused by unexplored conflicts entirely plausible, but that doesn't mean biological suppression isn't at play simultaneously.
|
|
|
Post by worksforme2 on Apr 28, 2020 7:12:19 GMT -5
As I watch this debate on the Coolidge Effect being volleyed back and forth I have had to ask myself if it is relevant in as far as a male's long term sexual proclivity in the marriage, what is the explanation for what is taking place in a woman who does the refusing? If the bull or other male breeder is biologically geared toward refusing a previous receptive female in favor of a new receptive female(old cow, new cow) then what is the biological explanation for women rejecting their male partners? I have a little bit of a problem with the idea that human males are little better than beasts when it comes to long term fidelity after choosing a mating partner. I do agree humans are animals, but stop short of taking on the rational that because we are animals we therefore share traits that are most commonly observed in the species lower on the food chain.
|
|
|
Post by Apocrypha on Apr 28, 2020 8:53:52 GMT -5
I think the "Coolidge Effect" is a tale people use to convince themselves of the futility of acting to resolve an unsatisfying relationship lifestyle, because it would be equally unhappy with someone else, and inevitable. I could agree people could use it that way to justify not addressing marital issues. Especially earlier in a dysfunctional marriage. I don't know that it is widespread knowledge though. A "tale" suggests something commonly relayed whereas acknowledgement of humans as animal is something of a subject of widespread denial. Refusers may take great offense to suggest that they are acting like animals by NOT being sexual with long time intimate partners. They feel celibacy is a cerebral exercise or self-restraint, an admirable choice of behavior. Speaking as a former "refuser", for several years in my 20's, I did not feel that way at all. Rather, I felt that having full sex with my partners during part of that period, felt like a promise that I was not prepared to keep or support. Dialing it back felt more appropriate to my level of commitment. True - plus this revelation that hit my like a bottle over the head when I was still in my dysfunctional deal: Wasn't I in the same marriage, with the same family and the same pressures? Why should I take her appeal to the fatigue of having a household and having to do things (which she would have to do alone as well btw), as being true on the face of it when I was also in that same household and looking to the relationship as a source of strength and joy, rather than depletion? [quote[ And what explains the sudden energy that your wife and other previously subdued people experience upon meeting a new partner. The absence of the resentments can be part of it but is it far fetched to guess that biological novelty is not exclusive to the rest of the animal kingdom in which frenzied sex is confirmed? [/quote] Sure, but again, why would you exempt your own sustained desire for your same longterm partner in the same marriage as a point to consider when weighing the validity? Shouldn't that run both ways?
|
|
|
Post by bozodeclowne on Apr 28, 2020 11:37:29 GMT -5
Now, it might seem to everyone here, and to me at the time, "Hey dumb dumb - if you want to have a marriage, then you need to be closer - close enough to at least have an intimate relationship!" But that point ignores the glaring fact hidden in plain site - which is that she doesn't WANT an intimate relationship with me because she doesn't feel that way about me. There's no way she can simply change her mind on how she feels. This is my sticking point, exactly. For years, having heard "I don't feel close to you" as the reason we don't have any intimacy (of any sort), and yet never seeing any movement in that direction or even respond to my own efforts, I conclude she doesn't want an intimate relationship with me at all. Yet, she still insists she does want us to have that sort of relationship, even as she pulls further away. So, why is it so important for me to be right, and to have her admit it? As if I'm just waiting to spring the " ah-ha! I KNEW it!" line, to be vindicated. Her refusal to admit what seems to be the obvious truth is aggravating in the extreme, but also a bit paralyzing. What if I'm wrong? Is there some avenue I haven't explored here? Some codependency on my part for sure, but if this is manipulation, I don't think it is a conscious effort on her part.
|
|
|
Post by northstarmom on Apr 28, 2020 11:41:23 GMT -5
“ This is my sticking point, exactly. For years, having heard "I don't feel close to you" as the reason we don't have any intimacy (of any sort), and yet never seeing any movement in that direction or even respond to my own efforts, I conclude she doesn't want an intimate relationship with me at all. Yet, she still insists she does want us to have that sort of relationship, even as she pulls further away.”
She wants the non intimacy benefits of marriage. She won’t tell you that directly because she knows that you’d then leave the marriage. So ,she placates you by promising to try, and you stay because you choose to believe her words, not her actions.
|
|
|
Post by Apocrypha on Apr 28, 2020 12:32:44 GMT -5
This is my sticking point, exactly. For years, having heard "I don't feel close to you" as the reason we don't have any intimacy (of any sort), and yet never seeing any movement in that direction or even respond to my own efforts, I conclude she doesn't want an intimate relationship with me at all. Yet, she still insists she does want us to have that sort of relationship, even as she pulls further away. So, why is it so important for me to be right, and to have her admit it? As if I'm just waiting to spring the " ah-ha! I KNEW it!" line, to be vindicated. Her refusal to admit what seems to be the obvious truth is aggravating in the extreme, but also a bit paralyzing. What if I'm wrong? Is there some avenue I haven't explored here? Some codependency on my part for sure, but if this is manipulation, I don't think it is a conscious effort on her part. The answer is staring you right in the face. Why haven't you left the dysfunctional, celibate marriage? Maybe she has the exact same answer. It was a thunderclap moment for me that shifted my framing in my own situation. She said "I've also been in a sexless marriage too." That thunderclap took about a year or more before I realized what it really meant
|
|
|
Post by mirrororchid on Apr 29, 2020 6:38:37 GMT -5
Refusers may take great offense to suggest that they are acting like animals by NOT being sexual with long time intimate partners. They feel celibacy is a cerebral exercise or self-restraint, an admirable choice of behavior. Speaking as a former "refuser", for several years in my 20's, I did not feel that way at all. Rather, I felt that having full sex with my partners during part of that period, felt like a promise that I was not prepared to keep or support. Dialing it back felt more appropriate to my level of commitment. True - plus this revelation that hit my like a bottle over the head when I was still in my dysfunctional deal: Wasn't I in the same marriage, with the same family and the same pressures? Why should I take her appeal to the fatigue of having a household and having to do things (which she would have to do alone as well btw), as being true on the face of it when I was also in that same household and looking to the relationship as a source of strength and joy, rather than depletion? Apr 28, 2020 7:48:15 GMT -4 mirrororchid said: And what explains the sudden energy that your wife and other previously subdued people experience upon meeting a new partner. The absence of the resentments can be part of it but is it far fetched to guess that biological novelty is not exclusive to the rest of the animal kingdom in which frenzied sex is confirmed?Sure, but again, why would you exempt your own sustained desire for your same longterm partner in the same marriage as a point to consider when weighing the validity? Shouldn't that run both ways? Dang every one of your replies is worthy of a post/discussion. Partners? With an "s"? Open marriage wasn't a paradigm for you, I guess. Coolidge addresses sexuality that wanes and vanishes, absent biochemical intervention (hormone injections in rats). We should probably avoid opening this barrel of worms, but these would be questions I'd start with. 1. Coolidge effect does not address styles of lovemaking. Rats aren't very imaginative, I figure. It also appears to entail a waning of ardor. I would have to guess your switch to non-intercourse intimacy was abrupt (even if the partner didn't realize it.) 2. When you did switch methods, did the frequency of physical intimacy decline regardless? More broadly, what was the outcome of your relationships in general? 3. Did you ever have a partner who you had declining intimacy with that became similarly wanton after that decline that did not resemble Coolidge Effect? (Bearing in mind anecdotal evidence can be weak). Could long absences explain such recharging, if so? The puzzlement that marriage could be seen as a drain versus a source of energy matches stereotypical libido styles within marriage. My relatively strong attraction to my wife is similar. These, I'd expect are consistent with proposed mechanisms behind the Coolidge effect. Females should reduce mating with the same male over and over if they are to diversify their genome in defense against pathogens and other threats against their posterity. Males, in more typical species, are at liberty to mate not just with females they have already mated with, but with others should maintain their interest much longer, given their minimal investment in biological resources, perhaps only desisting from mating with the original after securing a satiated stable of alternative mates that may be geographically distant from their first mate and increasing the cost to untenable levels. Statistics indicate sexual interest wanes in females over a period from 1-4 years into a marriage whereas men's interest peters out around year 10. It may amuse to note that the seven year itch would be the average between the two ranges wherein alternate mates are sought, or at least tempting. Within a psychology confine, women may have some success blotting out the concept of additional mates. Under such circumstances, the 1-4 year range is an interval where existing children are growing up. Should a female animal not have additional mates available, investing energy in existing young may be more evolutionarily strategic. Making efforts to further the thriving of their young can drain their resources (tiring them). The departure of the male may present an unconscious equation of balancing how much to invest in maintaining the bond versus how much benefit can be had for the young if the male is not pursued. Much of this fits the tales of woe we hear about marriages. I'd like to emphasize that this all weighs in subtly, subconsciously. It may be elevated to deliberate calculation, but even among those weighing costs and benefits is a biological element that urges people and animals to "move on". I equate it to the unhelpful friend at a coffee shop making snide comments about a spouse, egging on a husband or wife's vague dissatisfaction. Every flaw exaggerated just a little in an erosive decay of the ideal we're commonly expected to uphold: "happily ever after". Awareness of the biological imperative is something like recognizing that the coffee friend has a special guy/gal in mind for you and has their own matchmaking ulterior motive behind the sabotage. Given its subtlety, your observation that the physical intimacy decay often has reasons other than Coolidge is accepted. I only seek to suggest there may be a small push over the cliff always in play, potentially dwarfed by other, bigger reasons and forces that aren't necessarily dramatic.
|
|
|
Post by mirrororchid on Apr 29, 2020 6:54:01 GMT -5
This is my sticking point, exactly. For years, having heard "I don't feel close to you" as the reason we don't have any intimacy (of any sort), and yet never seeing any movement in that direction or even respond to my own efforts, I conclude she doesn't want an intimate relationship with me at all. Yet, she still insists she does want us to have that sort of relationship, even as she pulls further away. In some instances, I can see the wish for closeness to be sincere (as you agree, it seems). The forlorn spouses may not know how to produce such closeness and cannot tell you what would achieve it. Speaking in these mercenary terms is a turn off for some, I would expect, but it strikes me as fair to say this much about the unidentifiable shifts needed to produce the elusive "closeness" that may have few objective, empirical parameters. (Can you measure "close"?) To provide you with something of an "Aha" moment, but not necessarily to indicate that your wife isn't sincere about her longing, I'd want to tell such spouses (including my own): You don't feel close to me you say. I do not doubt this. I cannot tell what feelings you have if you say nothing and we're in the pitch black dark. I guess how you feel by what you say and by facial expressions. Absent those things, I figure what your feelings are will match those within a range of possibilities I have suspected you have held recently, perhaps described by the word "mood". As I cannot detect your feelings except by word or action (including changing your facial expression or tone of voice) or a physical act towards me, it is reasonable to assume I cannot change those feelings absent words or actions either. If we are in that dark room and I may not speak, how may your feelings towards me change? (no fair feeling around to find each other). So if your feelings towards me are to change, that suggests there is some collection of words or actions that could bring about the "closeness" you say you want before physical closeness may arise. I do not know what those words or actions are and I need you to identify promising possibilities and present them to me. Perhaps I cannot oblige, and I could explain why and that could prove helpful for strengthening our marriage or helping us foresee its inevitable dissolution. Either way, we progress and it's worthwhile to hear what you think you need from me. Left for another discussion here at ILIASM are a selection of words and actions that we may think about to see if maybe we can guess which ones they might need, recognizing that indulging in speculating about spousal needs can lead to long delays in proper communication and effective action.
|
|
|
Post by Apocrypha on Apr 29, 2020 9:39:55 GMT -5
Partners? With an "s"? Open marriage wasn't a paradigm for you, I guess. Relationship 2.0 or 3.0 with my then wife was an open relationship for several years. So that's also a format I've tried - and my observations have held consistent within that over time. It's too limiting to rate the quality of sexual expression as to whether it was based on intercourse or not - rather than enthusiasm and the expression of desire for that partner. In my case, the waning of ardor literally began on the wedding night - after years of her chasing me. It continued to wane in lurches with each significant further intermingling of destinies - whether financial - such as buying a house or moving in together - or pregnancy and children. That also coincided with age - but the thing is - age increases gradually, while these dropoffs were precipitous. And without getting into too much detail, I am extremely comfortable and confident with my openness and enthusiasm for adapting and learning style and technique where it comes to sexual expression and skill - both in general, and in particular with Mrs Apocrypha. I've had partners periodically who seem to have difficulty with physical intimacy (though they often are unaware of it), and after talking to them - and comparing to my wife - it's apparent that in many cases (including my own), a partner might say yes enthusiastically to sex opportunistically - because they are horny - and not because they actually have a specific unique attraction to a person. More, it's about convenience. This kind of situation is what I tend to describe as "Why not?" sex. Further, as I've been out in the dating world and dating other women who were in sexless marriages themselves in either role, I've found that most dysfunctional deals went through a "loss of desire" - which usually could be traced to coincide with a significant trigger. Presence of children for example, revealing a parenting style of a partner, or simply being in a family again. In another friend, a mysterious STD appeared and was dismissed without significant confrontation or resolution. Sure, though that doesn't really account for the many accounts - including mine - of a partner who had a robust and adventurous libido and that suddenly or gradually changes. I'm not saying the Coolidge doesn't exist. But as with my previous comments - if it exists - should it not exist for both partners? Most cases in here tend to do what you are doing - which is to attribute the loss of attraction to obvious factors of age and longevity of marriage - while ignoring their own sustained or increased attraction within the same marriage, across the same period of time and circumstances. There's not much you can do with Coolidge - other than perhaps shake things up by introducing new styles or formats (open relationships, learn the kama sutra, learn bdsm and explore various kinks, change yourself - fitness etc). But my own experience with those and from what I've observed in my time with those communities across several years - aside from some novelty - the existing dead bedroom and resentful dynamic tends to reassert itself or just extend itself throughout after an early surge. I think the problem there is sifting out a partner's general state of horniness vs actually having a unique attraction for their partner. Best case - both those things are present. And with all things being equal - even with waning attraction - someone might say "why not" if they are horny and their partner wants some. But they won't if they actively do not see that person as even a sexual partner. Then it's a turnoff - and any attempt to "try new things" or "center the discussion on or open commnication about sex and preferences" - will be seen as a partner being "sex obsessed". When it gets there, the averse partner is projecting her own disgust with her partner or with the situation - assuming that her abandoned partner FEELS THE SAME WAY, when he does not. She thinks, "What's wrong with you, that you want to bang me when you think so little of me. You are a pervert who treats me as a meatbag." Meanwhile - the issue is likely that SHE is assuming her anger or disillusionment is mutual, when it is not. Fair enough - I'm sure it's there. But if it is - it's there for both and not likely lopsided. If it's there in roughly equal measure - it's unlikely those people will end up here, on this board. The problem I see is that people tend to reach for it too often while ignoring the other dragons all around.
|
|
|
Post by bozodeclowne on Apr 29, 2020 11:31:49 GMT -5
...a partner might say yes enthusiastically to sex opportunistically - because they are horny - and not because they actually have a specific unique attraction to a person. More, it's about convenience. This kind of situation is what I tend to describe as "Why not?" sex. ... I think the problem there is sifting out a partner's general state of horniness vs actually having a unique attraction for their partner. Best case - both those things are present. And with all things being equal - even with waning attraction - someone might say "why not" if they are horny and their partner wants some. But they won't if they actively do not see that person as even a sexual partner. Then it's a turnoff - and any attempt to "try new things" or "center the discussion on or open communication about sex and preferences" - will be seen as a partner being "sex obsessed". This caused me confusion for years. I'd be thinking even given differences in libido surely she would be horny at some point, and we're sleeping in the same bed. I'm right here - it's the perfect situation for "Why Not?" sex. Cue frustration and disappointment. Thing is, I only recently connected the dots to reach the conclusion highlighted in red. Partly because of her insistence otherwise, but more likely due to the ego-crushing implications of reaching that conclusion. I suppose I always knew on some level, but desperately wanted to be wrong. Funny how the "It's always about sex with you" shaming tactic had to be modified to "It's always about the physical with you" when she withdrew any form of touch whatsoever. I've pushed back hard against those sorts of discussion-ending attempts the past couple of years, which frustrates her, but she really bristles at my pointing out her lack of candor. Places like the Dead Bedrooms subreddit are filled with 20 & 30-somethings that are stuck in this confused state. Unfortunately, the "Tell it like it is" voices are mostly shouted-down over there. So thank you to those of you straight-shooters here. Your posts are often unpleasant to accept, but needed and appreciated.
|
|