|
Post by mirrororchid on Apr 30, 2020 19:40:41 GMT -5
But as with my previous comments - if it exists - should it not exist for both partners?...ignoring their own sustained or increased attraction within the same marriage, across the same period of time and circumstances.
I've heard the Coolidge effect does apply to both partners. Typically, it just wanes more slowly for the male, leaving the stereotypes we see. Differing rates of waning may mean a refused partner has waning interest but cannot notice because the frequency they would prefer is always higher than what they are able to achieve in their marriage. If one partner would only like intimacy once a month but only manages to make it happen twice a year, they may be unaware how little they'd actually need, given their druthers. 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). Such choices might be more successful if one is aware of a possible biological root behind the need to "spice things up.". Awareness of this possible tendency to cool down may put engaged partners on their guard against complacency. Maybe it would make no difference, but I think it would be a good thing if people tried to notice diminishing libido and recognize it as a built in saboteur of closeness in a marriage and possible threat to longevity if that is a priority (which it almost always is) ... 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". 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.I could see that. Quite disturbing. Transforming attraction into contempt laced with objectification. My wife played that card a few times. She seemed to accept that I'd never not been attracted. Her lack of attraction to me didn't change my desire. She may have hidden doubts, but I don't think so. Other wives may hold on to such assumptions more firmly. My wife is plagued with self-doubt, sad to say, so perhaps she saw reason more readily. 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. Ignoring reasons for loss of libido is surely a reason for strife in itself. Agreed. It could be very difficult to measure loss of libido to determine if it is lopsided or not. As I've noted, research suggests gents lose interest at about a third the rate women do, and evolutionarily, that makes sense. Men should continue to crave their wives even if they crave others as well. Simultaneous similar slacking would produce those happy old couples who never got too far out of sync to see the marriage as anything but a blessing. Lucky 'ol coots.
|
|
|
Post by mirrororchid on Apr 30, 2020 19:50:43 GMT -5
... 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. ... This caused me confusion for years. I'd be thinking even given differences in libido surely she would be horny at some point,... 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" 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. Apocrypha has a superb point in pointing out that refusers may crave sex and jail themselves in a marriage with their refused partner, but I think he's a bit quick to dismiss the possibility of asexual partners who see sex with a partner as a necessary pathway to getting married and having children. They may see these things as rites of passage, goals set by parents, or actual desired achievements of the refuser. Once married, they really don't want sex with anyone ever again. From what I've read sexual abuse survivors can follow this pattern as well as fundamentalist religious types that see sex as sinful and dirty, but righteous if used in context. Apocrypha's scenario, I suspect is more common, possibly by a lot, but refused partners should be aware of the many obstacles to "normal" marriage. I'm curious, what do the 20 and 30-somethings tell themselves? Pollyanna type stuff? (I actually find the empowering, take-action approach here to be pragmatic and positive. Sympathy for those who feel trapped (don't want to lose the kids, or somesuch) is abundant. I've seen dead bedroom subreddit, but didn't spend much time there. ILIASM was far more comprehensive in its analysis and approach. (and often pretty funny too.)
|
|
|
Post by Apocrypha on Apr 30, 2020 22:42:56 GMT -5
As I've noted, research suggests gents lose interest at about a third the rate women do, and evolutionarily, that makes sense. Men should continue to crave their wives even if they crave others as well. True. However, many of these accounts span over a decade and sometimes several, with the same dynamic.
|
|
|
Post by Apocrypha on Apr 30, 2020 22:50:03 GMT -5
Apocrypha has a superb point in pointing out that refusers may crave sex and jail themselves in a marriage with their refused partner, but I think he's a bit quick to dismiss the possibility of asexual partners who see sex with a partner as a necessary pathway to getting married and having children. They may see these things as rites of passage, goals set by parents, or actual desired achievements of the refuser. True aesexuals account for something less than 1%. Anecdotally, my own wife thought she was one of them, as did many of the divorced or separated women I've dated. It's one of the most common things I hear. Objectively not the case. I am extremely skeptical that aesexuals view actual sexual activity in the "long game" grandmaster scenario you propose. If they did think of it all as a grand strategy, then wouldn't they apply that same logic toward maintaining their marital garden, rather than working and risking to avoid that task. In fact, many go to elaborate lengths and explanations and excuses to avoid sex, rather than have it. The simpler explanation is that they are like most people, and they consider their needs and aversions i n the moment, with respect to the partner in front of them.
|
|
|
Post by Apocrypha on Apr 30, 2020 22:54:07 GMT -5
Apocrypha has a superb point in pointing out that refusers may crave sex and jail themselves in a marriage with their refused partner, but I think he's a bit quick to dismiss the possibility of asexual partners who see sex with a partner as a necessary pathway to getting married and having children. They may see these things as rites of passage, goals set by parents, or actual desired achievements of the refuser. True aesexuals account for something less than 1%. Anecdotally, my own wife thought she was one of them, as did many of the divorced or separated women I've dated. It's one of the most common things I hear. Objectively not the case. I am extremely skeptical that aesexuals view actual sexual activity in the "long game" grandmaster scenario you propose. If they did think of it all as a grand strategy, then wouldn't they apply that same logic toward maintaining their marital garden, rather than working and risking to avoid that task. In fact, many go to elaborate lengths and explanations and excuses to avoid sex, rather than have it. The simpler explanation is that they are like most people, and they consider their needs and aversions i n the moment, with respect to the partner in front of them. Regardless of the reason though, whether it is aesexuality or aversion to a spouse as a person, or to the circumstance of the marriage - it all ends up the same way. It ends up with the intimately invested partner trying to solve the averse partner's aversion for them, while the averse partner sits indifferent or actively resists the effort, as year after celibate year passes.
|
|
|
Post by mirrororchid on May 1, 2020 18:41:44 GMT -5
True aesexuals account for something less than 1%. Anecdotally, my own wife thought she was one of them, as did many of the divorced or separated women I've dated. It's one of the most common things I hear. Objectively not the case. I am extremely skeptical that aesexuals view actual sexual activity in the "long game" grandmaster scenario you propose. If they did think of it all as a grand strategy, then wouldn't they apply that same logic toward maintaining their marital garden, rather than working and risking to avoid that task. In fact, many go to elaborate lengths and explanations and excuses to avoid sex, rather than have it. The simpler explanation is that they are like most people, and they consider their needs and aversions i n the moment, with respect to the partner in front of them. Regardless of the reason though, whether it is aesexuality or aversion to a spouse as a person, or to the circumstance of the marriage - it all ends up the same way. It ends up with the intimately invested partner trying to solve the averse partner's aversion for them, while the averse partner sits indifferent or actively resists the effort, as year after celibate year passes. 1% sounds plausible. Sure. Beneath the true asexuals may exist those indifferent to sex. Those not up for "Why not?" sex, but "If I must" sex. There may be those who, well, have never had any that was much good and may figure they are incapable of caring about it. They may be right. Some may be driven by that same religious upbringing who see it as a marital duty and do the minimum. Some may see it as a pleasant service to God. Spiritual but not physical. Some might find it marvelously delicious, but they had no role models to accept pleasure or be given it so they may be surprised by their body's capabilities to provide bliss. I imagine there's a continuum in play. Surely the effort to maintain a marriage does come into play for many of the refusers. I find the breadth of rationales and range of enthusiasm largely unfathomable, largely due to the lack of polite conversation on the subject and the difficulty obtaining objective statistics, given the subjectivity involved in much of sexuality. Knowledge will be a dicey thing. To say that the needs of the moment do not apply to what they have as goals for the future doesn't strike me as contradictory,. They can intensely want to be married and have a family at the moment and recognize sex as a required step to that goal. Your'e extremely skeptical? I am less so. Mind you, I'm not saying such long-game strategists are common. Some of them may even have emotional engagement towards their dreams of marriage and family which can be its own form of desire. They can want the sex, quite badly, for the gateways it opens. It can be a visceral longing for an adult relationship, while having a connection to sex, but not an actual desire for the sex. I imagine I can think of a dozen other scenarios, given time.
|
|