|
Post by mirrororchid on Sept 14, 2020 6:13:46 GMT -5
I think she has a common misconception, for somebody to win, someone must lose. The idea of mutual wins seems alien to her. I think she fears retrospective guilt. As it stands she is doing nothing wrong in her eyes. If we move to a typical sexual behaviour then she has to contemplate the decades of hurt and damage she wrecked on us. She won't so she prefers to make her stand as the true voice of sexual reason in the marriage and I am just a typical sex mad male. That is one tough hurdle to leap. I feel a bit bad for refusers now. No wonder it takes "The Talk" to make them face the music. (If they ever do)
|
|
|
Post by ironhamster on Sept 14, 2020 10:08:08 GMT -5
How many therapists does it take to change a lightbulb? Only one, but the lightbulb has to want to change.
As a general observation, we, the refused are uncomfortable with the status quo and wanting change. Our refusers perceive no lacking on their part. They have no unmet needs. They don't consider our unmet needs to be an issue to be fulfilled. Work on yourself, any way you can.
One of the things I did was to get back into shape. I became a regular at exercise classes at the gym, in which the vast majority of the participants were women. The experience gave me the confidence I needed to make other changes in my life.
Many years ago I opened a Chinese fortune cookie, and it read, "there are changes in store for you, but you will be happy." I'm not superstitious, but, I liked that. I think it is a self fulfilling prophecy. Find your "happy", whatever it is.
|
|
|
Post by Apocrypha on Sept 14, 2020 21:27:18 GMT -5
As a general observation, we, the refused are uncomfortable with the status quo and wanting change. Our refusers perceive no lacking on their part. They have no unmet needs. As a general observation, both parties in the marriage are trying to preserve the structure and benefits associated with the marriage, while at the same time not in a relationship in which sexual fulfillment is possible because they do not SHARE a unique mutual attraction, and one of them likely is genuinely averse or disgusted by the thought of sex with the other. It doesn't mean they have no unmet needs. It means they are making do with the marriage "as it is" and deciding to remain celibate rather than end it, or having sex with someone they don't see that way. Both parties are trapped.
|
|
|
Post by saarinista on Sept 15, 2020 0:49:48 GMT -5
Apocrypha I appreciate your position that our refuser's needs are going unmet just like the sexual needs of we, the refused, but I just don't think that's always the case. I understand your position to be that refusers still want sex, but just not with US, leaving their needs unmet, too. I agree that's the case in some relationships. However, I think others involve a refuser who is either asexual or "over" sex, period.
|
|
|
Post by baza on Sept 15, 2020 0:59:34 GMT -5
Personally, I am of the view that it doesn't matter a great deal whether your spouse is - (a) - not interested in sex generally (b) - not interested in sex with you specifically
The outcome is still you being disenfranchised.
|
|
|
Post by Apocrypha on Sept 15, 2020 13:30:45 GMT -5
Apocrypha I appreciate your position that our refuser's needs are going unmet just like the sexual needs of we, the refused, but I just don't think that's always the case. I understand your position to be that refusers still want sex, but just not with US, leaving their needs unmet, too. I agree that's the case in some relationships. However, I think others involve a refuser who is either asexual or "over" sex, period. "Most researchers indicated the prevalence of asexuality to be around 1.05% (approximately 70 million people); others like Bogaert (2004) believed it to be higher." Psychology Today
Around 1%. Western divorce rates hover above 50%. In nearly all divorces, there is a period of prolonged celibacy and/or conflict over the frequency and quality of sex. If I consider these data in light of my anecdotal context as a very active dater of separated and divorced women in a metropolitan Western city, and that of my single male friends - it's an overwhelmingly common story, that either my date thought she was aesexual in her marriage only to discover post-marriage that she was not at all, or that her ex-partner was disinterested in marriage, only to quickly move on in a new relationship. If only 1% of people are aesexuals, then the motivation for this celibacy arises from elsewhere. From where though? A reasonable place to begin might be to look at what happens in non-married relationships (dating) when there is a disconnection that results in one partner being turned off of the other. They break up. It happens all the time, dozens of times in serial, following some fundamental disconnection that changes the way they thought about that partner. It's the most natural, reasonable, and obvious thing in the world - they just aren't married so it doesn't raise an eyebrow. Why do I think it's important? (somewhat)
After all, as baza correctly points out - in either case, you feel disenfranchised in your relationship - and that's a point well-taken. I think it's important because taking action to end that disenfranchisement is a big pill to swallow before you even recognize the nature of the disconnection. When the issue is aesexuality or an inexplicable "loss of drive", there seems to be a tendency (which I also had) to react or frame it as if it is a medical dysfunction - akin to a marriage getting cancer. Framing it this way seems to trigger a noble sentiment to stick in the relationship and weather through it together - as if you are both in this together. The "sexual dysfunction" is on par with one of you having a life-changing injury. It's tempting to then pin one's own quality as a mate by how nobly you suffer to remain in the relationship that is lacking sexual expression. You are in this together then, and you are the stalwart soul sticking by your partner during this period - never giving up. It is evidence of how strong your marriage is - the length that you are able to endure this unhappiness. You likely aren't in this together, though and that's the problem. One of you has left. There's no pill. And even when there is, the most common result is that the guys won't take it, or won't make an appointment. Why is that? Because they likely don't want to have sex with you. If your root assumptions about a problem are incorrect, then your attempts to remedy by solving that problem are likely to fail. In most cases here, the assumption seems to be about solving the problem of your partner's mysterious lack of sex drive, whereas the problem is actually that your partner is contemptuous of you or of the marriage, or at least no longer sees you as a viable sexual partner, knowing whatever they know now. I think it's important, because once people realize and accept this (if it's applicable), it becomes clear and obvious what to do about it. Should you be married to someone who views you that way? It also helps move towards understanding and empathizing with the problem - because as painful as it is - it's one thing you both have in common. You BOTH feel disenfranchised and unsatisfied in the relationship but also are both prioritizing some aspect of practical upkeep rather than moving on. There's no refuge in the lie that you are noble martyr for your afflicted partner. It puts agency in your hands, and also puts agency in your partner's hands. It's a bit like a brazen affair - it compels an informed response instead of inaction.
|
|
|
Post by saarinista on Sept 15, 2020 14:28:58 GMT -5
I agree with you that most of us probably stay in our sexual marriages too long.
Whether for children, financial reasons, family pressures, religious digma or a desire to play the noble martyr, I agree many of us stay far too long. However those justifications to stay are not easily overcome.
But your logic is well taken. It's not always so noble to stay in a marriage in which your spouse may not be optimally happy.
If you can accept that you're not doing yourself any favors by staying, then you can decide whether you are doing the right thing, or merely trying to avoid hassles from your family, giving up your retirement, or the judgement of your church.
|
|
|
Post by mirrororchid on Sept 15, 2020 17:35:16 GMT -5
I agree with you that most of us probably stay in our sexual marriages too long. Whether for children, financial reasons, family pressures, religious dogma or a desire to play the noble martyr, I agree many of us stay far too long. However those justifications to stay are not easily overcome. But your logic is well taken. It's not always so noble to stay in a marriage in which your spouse may not be optimally happy. If you can accept that you're not doing yourself any favors by staying, then you can decide whether you are doing the right thing, or merely trying to avoid hassles from your family, giving up your retirement, or the judgement of your church. From what I've read, the motives and causes can differ between sexes. Impotence can afflict male refusers Menopause can impose discomfort during sex or crater hormones to kill off interest. It's usually the guys who get addicted to porn. For all those marriages that are "great except for the sex", opening the marriage seems a sensible answer that is anathema to mainstream society Instead, everyone is expected to find new partners of acceptable income, sleeping habits, who get along with any children one has, dividing labor, tolerating each others taste in music, movies, or what have you. Assuming you haven't grown apart, having a best friend whose company you've enjoyed for an extended length doesn't strike me as a bad thing to want to keep around. Frankly, what reason is there to divorce unless you want to marry someone else? To be sure some FWB (of both sexes, I've discovered) crave marriage and will chafe at the idea of taking a married lover who is not making any moves towards divorce. If nookie is truly all that's missing, divorce strikes me as swatting a fly with a sledgehammer. Sure it'll work, but why cause all the damage? Waitasec guys. Is it lawyers? Lawyers are behind all the "if you want sex ever again you better hand me $10,000" unexamined mantra of sanctimonious society? I may be on to something. I mean, sex and money are the two causes of divorce and who wants to handle a divorce where the couple is broke, amiright?
|
|
|
Post by saarinista on Sept 15, 2020 20:02:15 GMT -5
I think religion is more behind the sanctimony of marriage. And family obligations.
I agree that open marriage seems like a viable solution. However, the reality of it is that very few spouses will go for that.
|
|
|
Post by elynne on Sept 16, 2020 0:30:33 GMT -5
My wife refuses counselling because of my depression therapy. She says it makes me an expert at therapy so would "win". She never defines what winning means but there you go. This may be a blessing in disguise. My ex tried to use an employee of his practice as our couples therapist. When I called him out on it amidst being belittled and put down he finally agreed to a therapist who didn’t work for him. Our therapist was well intentioned but woefully ill prepared to provide couples therapy, let alone in an abusive marriage. The damage it did to my mental health to have our therapist side with my abusive husband and tacitly approve of his abuse was enormous. After a year and a half of therapy I was just barely keeping it together. The abuse escalated at home and the therapist was unwittingly complicit. lessingham - from what I know of your story, couples therapy with your wife would very likely run a similar course. Take care of you.
|
|
|
Post by Apocrypha on Sept 16, 2020 8:44:00 GMT -5
Impotence can afflict male refusers Menopause can impose discomfort during sex or crater hormones to kill off interest. It's usually the guys who get addicted to porn. For all those marriages that are "great except for the sex", opening the marriage seems a sensible answer that is anathema to mainstream society Instead, everyone is expected to find new partners of acceptable income, sleeping habits, who get along with any children one has, dividing labor, tolerating each others taste in music, movies, or what have you. Assuming you haven't grown apart, having a best friend whose company you've enjoyed for an extended length doesn't strike me as a bad thing to want to keep around. Frankly, what reason is there to divorce unless you want to marry someone else? To be sure some FWB (of both sexes, I've discovered) crave marriage and will chafe at the idea of taking a married lover who is not making any moves towards divorce. If nookie is truly all that's missing, divorce strikes me as swatting a fly with a sledgehammer. Sure it'll work, but why cause all the damage? Because sex generally isn't all that's missing. The loss of sexual expression is somewhere close to the final stage of disconnection, where the aversion to one's partner or the marriage has risen to such a degree that it overrides even the natural appetite. It's stage 4 cancer, erupting through the skin. It's not stage 1. "Opening the marriage" under such a circumstance - which I agreed to for several years - might allow a partner to have sex again, but most often it would be enjoyed much as in the context of a vacation destination or a hobby. Meaning: the logistics of maintaining an enjoyable sexual relationship outside of the home, as well as the circumstance of returning to a disaffected partner with whom you will spend the foreseeable future - make it a totally different experience from sex within a marriage to a partner with whom you have a future. You aren't just snapping a sex LEGO block into a marital construct with a gap in it. You still come home to place where you don't feel welcome, and sleep beside a person who hates you or your marriage to you. If your spouse is engaged in some kind of marital Cold War with you - opening the marriage is going to intensify that disconnection or raise the stakes to something comparable to an affair. You'll also raise, not lower, the standard of treatment that you will accept. In some ways, raising the stakes by opening the marriage, could benefit the couple as a kind of gambit, setting a timer on the "do nothing and tolerate this" approach - which favours the celibate. Now they realize that doing nothing is an active choice and they need a proper argument to establish why no one else can have what they don't want with you. Then you can get closer to resolving the question that everyone has to resolve - is the nature of our relationship aligned to its format? As it pertains to couples therapy, I've had three different couples therapists for extended runs - one of them for two years at peak crisis - through an affair and an open relationship. I really have a sense that either the field in general hasn't established effective techniques, or the the diagnosis that prompts people to visit is so grave as to be a very difficult thing to turn around. A lot of individual therapy arises out of an idea of holding up a mirror so you can see your behaviors. I suspect that in marriages though, couples are already pretty good at holding up a mirror to each other. I'm mildly curious about the efficacy of Gottman's therapeutic approach- given that his evidence-based diagnostic tools are so effective and well researched.
|
|
|
Post by mirrororchid on Sept 16, 2020 19:31:28 GMT -5
Impotence can afflict male refusers Menopause can impose discomfort during sex or crater hormones to kill off interest. It's usually the guys who get addicted to porn. For all those marriages that are "great except for the sex", opening the marriage seems a sensible answer that is anathema to mainstream society Instead, everyone is expected to find new partners of acceptable income, sleeping habits, who get along with any children one has, dividing labor, tolerating each others taste in music, movies, or what have you. Assuming you haven't grown apart, having a best friend whose company you've enjoyed for an extended length doesn't strike me as a bad thing to want to keep around. Frankly, what reason is there to divorce unless you want to marry someone else? To be sure some FWB (of both sexes, I've discovered) crave marriage and will chafe at the idea of taking a married lover who is not making any moves towards divorce. If nookie is truly all that's missing, divorce strikes me as swatting a fly with a sledgehammer. Sure it'll work, but why cause all the damage? Because sex generally isn't all that's missing. Sure. And opening a marriage of people better off divorced is likely a longshot.
...the logistics of maintaining an enjoyable sexual relationship outside of the home, as well as the circumstance of returning to a disaffected partner with whom you will spend the foreseeable future - make it a totally different experience from sex within a marriage to a partner with whom you have a future. You aren't just snapping a sex LEGO block into a marital construct with a gap in it. You still come home to place where you don't feel welcome, and sleep beside a person who hates you or your marriage to you. Agreed. These are circumstances where opening a relationship would be worse than divorce. Open marriages are better suited for those who find their partner worthy of love, and may genuinely love them, but not sexually. Again, everything great but... ILIASM members refer to spouses that are like roommates. Well, if you could marry a good roommate and have FWBs, does that seem nightmarish? You may even want kids with that roommate because they're wonderful people...there's just no spark. Some people might not say no to that.
You'll also raise, not lower, the standard of treatment that you will accept. Absent pressure for sex that is unwanted, I could see improvement in behavior being a possibility. It'd help if it were a more common practice, perhaps with role models one could call upon.
|
|
|
Post by lessingham on Sept 17, 2020 2:59:46 GMT -5
Would you prefer a therapist of the same sex as you or opposite. Do wome make better couple therapists or men? Does it matter? As a mere bloke I think I would find it hard to admit my sexlessness to another man. I know it is wrong, it should be the person not their gender.
|
|
|
Post by saarinista on Sept 17, 2020 12:00:30 GMT -5
lessingham trust me, no therapist will be shocked by your sexlesessness. Gender is not how you pick a therapist. In my experience finding a therapist you click with is a matter of luck.
|
|
|
Post by northstarmom on Sept 17, 2020 13:19:07 GMT -5
Gender can be helpful in picking a therapist if you would be more comfortable talking to a woman or a man. Of course pick one with professional credentials. Make sure you also like and feel comfortable with the therapist during your first appointment. One of the predictors of treatment success is whether a patient likes their therapist.
|
|