|
Post by mirrororchid on Nov 8, 2021 5:32:31 GMT -5
If your spouse is watching you shower and dress for a hot Friday night out and you roll in at 2am and take another shower, that’s closer to a wittol relationship- a knowing, supportive and involved open relationship. It's not what I have seen as a "Don't ask". You may think the averse spouse is asking you to be discrete in front of others. I’m suggesting it’s more likely that the spouse herself doesn’t want to know when and if it is happening at all, because he/she doesn’t want to deal with the reality of it. She might not know your partner's name, but she knows exactly what and when, or will make it up... ...This may be the intent of the averse spouse who then gets to characterize you as a cheater or a pervert when people ask why you split, confident in the knowledge that nobody is going to care much about any fine mince --your request for an open relationship then becomes the reason for divorce and she gets to be the hero in her own mind. If she feels differently after finding out, then don't count on her acting within the bounds of what was agreed... ...As general advice evident from our different understandings of terms - it's vital to define in as practical terms as possible what people mean to avoid misunderstandings. Any refuser snooping around your business after you've agreed on DADT... is asking, and out of line. The plain meaning of the words is getting violated. And, as you spell out, may be entirely the point. Like Works4meToo, I'm also not inclined to think that "keeping it secret" is part of DADT either. If a neighbor "tells" your refuser, that cannot be expected to be in your control, unless negotiated up front, and even that is ill-advised. Secrets get out. The simplest way to preserve the appearance of a happy marriage is to work on making it into one. Refusers typically whiff on that more reliable method. We need a name for the arrangement you describe. It's like an affair in almost every sense. Your spouse knows it may happen, will pry into it and look for evidence, and hound you pointlessly. The negotiated points may be that the philanderer/hussy should: -Deny all the accusations. -Explain away all evidence uncovered. The more plausible the lies, the better. -Improve concealment methods. -Keep platonic companionship well away from where associates may see you then report your activities to the refuser. -Keep all expenses on a prepaid credit card. Expenses not to exceed an amount that becomes noticeable. -Minimize changes to usual routines. -Keep a burner phone on vibrate-only and text in the bathroom. In the event you fail to adequately jump through these hoops, the consequences should be understood in advance: -Cold shoulder (The "Rodham-Clinton Method") -Whining/Yelling/Crying/Epithets -Divorce -An insincere promise to never do it again -Discontinuation of this nutty arrangement Yeah. Hard pass. But maybe some refused people would be okay with a OftenADT arrangement like this. I hear some folks find the taboo nature of affairs very exciting. Maybe this acknowledged jeopardy would provide sufficient illicit adventure? I think it makes the refused act as though they accept shame that properly belongs to the refuser that is imposing unadvertised celibacy on their spouse. It's the refuser's job to weave tangled webs of lies to explain your behavior which mitigates their delinquency to their vows. There's a much easier way to fix the problem. This goofball solution is their invented problem to solve. Your cynical possibility that the refuser is setting you up to fail and preserving their station in the community would not be consistent with this responsibility to lie on your behalf. It threatens to make them the oblivious fool who seems to have wanted to be tricked. It undermines the sympathy they are angling for. You do well to point out this trap of the "permitted affair".
|
|
|
Post by mirrororchid on Nov 8, 2021 5:54:50 GMT -5
I fully understand that many wish to stay in their marriages. I doubt that many would stay in their marriages if they had an outside lover whom they loved and who loved them. It's easy to say that one would cut off an outside relationship if one fell in love with one's lover. It's harder to do that especially if one's lover also loves you. This is the landmine I feared most. Part of the plan was to date only married women. I'd not just have to weaken my resolve, she'd have to weaken hers. My first prospect (never consummated) liked sports and reality TV. I was amused at the idea of deliberately dating someone with entertainment choices I could not hope to bond with her over. This suggests a good dating style would be to seek out mates that you have little in common with except dedication to their own marriage. Maybe one or two things so it's not entirely devoid of platonic connection. Or do I tempt fate too much even with thoughts of wishing some degree of concern for her welfare outside of pleasure?
|
|
|
Post by Apocrypha on Nov 8, 2021 12:41:18 GMT -5
Any refuser snooping around your business after you've agreed on DADT... is asking, and out of line. The plain meaning of the words is getting violated. And, as you spell out, may be entirely the point. Like Works4meToo, I'm also not inclined to think that "keeping it secret" is part of DADT either. If a neighbor "tells" your refuser, that cannot be expected to be in your control, unless negotiated up front, and even that is ill-advised. Secrets get out. The simplest way to preserve the appearance of a happy marriage is to work on making it into one. Refusers typically whiff on that more reliable method. We need a name for the arrangement you describe. It's like an affair in almost every sense. Your spouse knows it may happen, will pry into it and look for evidence, and hound you pointlessly. The negotiated points may be that the philanderer/hussy should: -Deny all the accusations. -Explain away all evidence uncovered. The more plausible the lies, the better. -Improve concealment methods. -Keep platonic companionship well away from where associates may see you then report your activities to the refuser. -Keep all expenses on a prepaid credit card. Expenses not to exceed an amount that becomes noticeable. -Minimize changes to usual routines. -Keep a burner phone on vibrate-only and text in the bathroom. In the event you fail to adequately jump through these hoops, the consequences should be understood in advance: -Cold shoulder (The "Rodham-Clinton Method") -Whining/Yelling/Crying/Epithets -Divorce -An insincere promise to never do it again -Discontinuation of this nutty arrangement Yeah. Hard pass. But maybe some refused people would be okay with a OftenADT arrangement like this. I hear some folks find the taboo nature of affairs very exciting. Maybe this acknowledged jeopardy would provide sufficient illicit adventure? I think it makes the refused act as though they accept shame that properly belongs to the refuser that is imposing unadvertised celibacy on their spouse. It's the refuser's job to weave tangled webs of lies to explain your behavior which mitigates their delinquency to their vows. There's a much easier way to fix the problem. This goofball solution is their invented problem to solve. Your cynical possibility that the refuser is setting you up to fail and preserving their station in the community would not be consistent with this responsibility to lie on your behalf. It threatens to make them the oblivious fool who seems to have wanted to be tricked. It undermines the sympathy they are angling for. You do well to point out this trap of the "permitted affair". What you think when you say "don't ask, don't tell" is an agreement on conduct on both sides. What I've observed in others and lived with "don't ask, don't tell" is really "I just don't want to know about it", coupled with behavior that immediately begin trying to uncover it. It doesn't matter whether it's fair or makes sense or is out of line. It's simply what happens. To a person who is acquiescing to the open relationship and doesn't actually want it, it's she might as well take out a contract hit on herself, and then try to live her life as normal - as if every door she opens, every time she sleeps, every place she goes - there isn't someone waiting to kill her. Imagine the effort it takes to disguise an affair from a spouse who thinks you are having one? That's why I'm cynical about such intentions. The negotiated points don't matter either. You WILL pay a cost that is the same as if you are having an affair. It will start badly and get worse. It will get bad enough that the agreement you both had will go out the window. If you were trying to manage optics or a conscience, this won't be a sufficient shield. It will be posed as "gun to head": "he told me he wanted to see other women or he'd divorce me - he's a pervert" Full transparency can actually be a relief when compared to "don't ask, don't tell", because it at least trims down what's happening to a normal human sized relationship, instead of a romance movie happening every time you pick up your phone or walk out the door.
|
|
|
Post by Apocrypha on Nov 8, 2021 12:46:42 GMT -5
I fully understand that many wish to stay in their marriages. I doubt that many would stay in their marriages if they had an outside lover whom they loved and who loved them. It's easy to say that one would cut off an outside relationship if one fell in love with one's lover. It's harder to do that especially if one's lover also loves you. This is the landmine I feared most. Part of the plan was to date only married women. I'd not just have to weaken my resolve, she'd have to weaken hers. Baked in limits (inherent to the situation, rather than the intention) isn't a bad way. But, if the goal is to avoid falling for someone, you really aren't in charge of that no matter what you agree. You only have control over what you will do. Once you are in, and in love, you won't split. You'll only split if the situation is untenable outside of the feeling. In an open relationship, that likely happens if a spouse has a veto and feels insecure. In one of my own situations, it was when my paramour said she also wanted to pursue another paramour relationship with a person who was known to me and very connected to my family and business. The risk was too high. I did love her, but that was the end, immediately.
|
|
|
Post by theexplorer on Nov 8, 2021 17:50:11 GMT -5
" I fully understand that many wish to stay in their marriages. I doubt that many would stay in their marriages if they had an outside lover whom they loved and who loved them.
You are probably correct in thinking that many (or perhaps most) would leave their marriage. On the other hand, some would probably have sufficiently strong reasons to stay.
I read a book about long term affairs some time back. The book contained stories of married women who had long term lovers. (The author arbitrarily chose 5 years as the definition of a long term affair.) One of the women profiled in the book had lived this "double life" for over 30 years! None of the women told their husbands about their lovers. The book was called, "To Love, Honor and Betray: The Secret Life of Suburban Wives." by Stephanie Gertler.
That book opened my eyes to the possibility of having a long term lover. I had never considered the idea before. After thinking about it for some time, I decided it would be a very risky choice in my situation.
|
|
|
Post by mirrororchid on Nov 8, 2021 19:51:39 GMT -5
This is the landmine I feared most. Part of the plan was to date only married women. I'd not just have to weaken my resolve, she'd have to weaken hers. Baked in limits (inherent to the situation, rather than the intention) isn't a bad way. But, if the goal is to avoid falling for someone, you really aren't in charge of that no matter what you agree. You only have control over what you will do. Once you are in, and in love, you won't split. You'll only split if the situation is untenable outside of the feeling. In an open relationship, that likely happens if a spouse has a veto and feels insecure. In one of my own situations, it was when my paramour said she also wanted to pursue another paramour relationship with a person who was known to me and very connected to my family and business. The risk was too high. I did love her, but that was the end, immediately. My goal wouldn't be to avoid love. My goal would be to stay married as promised, while loving more than one. Mrs. Mirrororchid could do likewise. I had a metamour 27 years ago. We're friends today. I wouldn't mind that happening again. It was pretty cool. It was the 90's though. Almost no advice on polyamory then and we made rookie mistakes. Dang shame. Re: transparency in open marriages. Heck yeah. DADT baffles me.
|
|
|
Post by Apocrypha on Nov 8, 2021 22:36:45 GMT -5
The thing is, you can promise and be sincere in your intent to date someone else and remain loving and married to your wife. I did. I loved them both. But, it's not just what YOU would do - it's what your wife BELIEVES is likely. The reason most spouses in this situation say "No way" even though they aren't interested in a shag themselves, is that they can see the logic of you eventually pairing off with the third party if they, themselves, don't step into the marriage as a spouse. That's just the way the current pulls. What's the upside to the spouse?
I suspect that in a celibate deal in a marriage, the averse spouse already thinks herself the hero because she's also giving up sex for the sake of the marriage. So, if her abandoned husband chooses to find something outside of the marriage, it becomes a bridge too far.
Not saying it's right or makes sense, but everyone is the hero in their own story. That's why this kind of conversation - when conducted seriously - ends up cutting to the end of the race pretty quickly, in or out?
|
|
|
Post by worksforme2 on Nov 9, 2021 6:08:28 GMT -5
The thing is, you can promise and be sincere in your intent to date someone else and remain loving and married to your wife. I did. I loved them both. But, it's not just what YOU would do - it's what your wife BELIEVES is likely. The reason most spouses in this situation say "No way" even though they aren't interested in a shag themselves, is that they can see the logic of you eventually pairing off with the third party if they, themselves, don't step into the marriage as a spouse. That's just the way the current pulls. What's the upside to the spouse? I suspect that in a celibate deal in a marriage, the averse spouse already thinks herself the hero because she's also giving up sex for the sake of the marriage. So, if her abandoned husband chooses to find something outside of the marriage, it becomes a bridge too far. Not saying it's right or makes sense, but everyone is the hero in their own story. That's why this kind of conversation - when conducted seriously - ends up cutting to the end of the race pretty quickly, in or out? This is the part I will probably never understand. Having been told repeatedly that the marriage is in trouble if there is no intimacy or sex, and the outcome is divorce unless things change, why would a spouse who is seriously interested in saving or continuing in the marriage, choose to continue down that road? If the marriage is important at all why not consider an option that may turn things around and detour away from a divorce? You seem to be saying the martyr role is more important to them than the prospect on remaining a wife. Why would any W( other than vanity or selfishness) choose to torpedo everything when there is a possible viable course that continues the cruise on the love boat? Why steer the boat on to the rocks rather than turn away? And I disagree with the idea the W is giving up sex for the sake of the marriage. Any woman or man who might believe that would have to be demented. Giving up sex to insure a divorce can hardly fall under the category of saving the marriage. Suppose they do "see" the prospect of your potentially pairing off with the 3rd party? Why is that worse than the sure and certain likelihood of your more immediate pulling out of the marriage? It seems far more likely the spouse, somewhere in the dark recesses of their mind, actually prefers a divorce over the prospect of having sex. You're right in that it isn't right and it makes no sense, but I don't think anyone can see themselves as a hero. More like the protagonists in a Greek tragedy.
|
|
|
Post by mirrororchid on Nov 9, 2021 6:55:53 GMT -5
Having been told repeatedly that the marriage is in trouble if there is no intimacy or sex, and the outcome is divorce unless things change, why would a spouse who is seriously interested in saving or continuing in the marriage, choose to continue down that road? If the marriage is important at all why not consider an option that may turn things around and detour away from a divorce? You seem to be saying the martyr role is more important to them than the prospect on remaining a wife...., ...Why steer the boat on to the rocks rather than turn away? And I disagree with the idea the W is giving up sex for the sake of the marriage. Any woman or man who might believe that would have to be demented. Giving up sex to insure a divorce can hardly fall under the category of saving the marriage. Suppose they do "see" the prospect of your potentially pairing off with the 3rd party? Why is that worse than the sure and certain likelihood of your more immediate pulling out of the marriage? It seems far more likely the spouse, somewhere in the dark recesses of their mind, actually prefers a divorce over the prospect of having sex. You're right in that it isn't right and it makes no sense, but I don't think anyone can see themselves as a hero. More like the protagonists in a Greek tragedy. The word "repeatedly" may be key. They think the refused will eventually stop trying and join the refuser in resigned celibacy. I've seen it work a few times here on ILIASM. They bet on it all being bluff and some bet wrong. Others win their miserable prize. Apocrypha would say refusers see nothing but rocks in every way forward. You tell your refuser there are no rocks to the east, but they see that the only destination to the east is a desert island with one lone palm tree and a single coconut. There's nothing to the south, west, or north, but she meanders your ship anywhere but east because there's nothing she values there. You, OTOH, are seasick, and just getting land underfoot for a few hours would be a welcome relief from being on the endless cruise with the salty captain who seems to have no map or destination in mind. If you dock at that worthless island, you're just going to want to stop every chance you get. Better to get used to the nausea, get your sea legs, and accustom yourself to the life of the sea. Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr! The "forsake all others" part is perhaps the most important vow of any, to some refusers. (most?) You don't have to love, honor or cherish them, but if you stop forsaking even one other person, they don't see the two of you as married anymore. The marriage is a lie; a sham; a parody of the sacrament. Marriage means being locked down with someone. That is preeminent. All the rest is gravy. They see monogamy (agamy, more accurately) with each other as the core of the marriage while refused spouses may see it as the shell covering a hollow inside; a shiny, misleading veneer. That the refuser is trapped in a loveless marriage in service to the institution of marriage could be seen as a noble martyrdom. Perhaps not one that you or I value, but devout traditionalists might and they may integrate this sacrifice into their identity as something precious to them. It may operate in the co-dependency dynamic of establishing who they are. 'I am a spouse'. That title is a large part of who they see themselves as. It can be more important to know who you are, than to become something you'd prefer, at risk of being less.
|
|
|
Post by Apocrypha on Nov 9, 2021 13:18:37 GMT -5
This is the part I will probably never understand. Having been told repeatedly that the marriage is in trouble if there is no intimacy or sex, and the outcome is divorce unless things change, why would a spouse who is seriously interested in saving or continuing in the marriage, choose to continue down that road? [...] You seem to be saying the martyr role is more important to them than the prospect on remaining a wife. [...] And I disagree with the idea the W is giving up sex for the sake of the marriage. I thought as you did. Then Mrs Apocrypha said to me, "Let's not diminish the fact that I also have have been sexless as well." I stupidly argued that she had ample opportunity with me, and could have slain all our dragons if she just said "why not?" instead of "No". In doing so, I demonstrated my failure to understand the foundational truth - which is that she didn't see me as a sexual partner at all - and that this was a strain on our marriage for her as much as it was for me. This is different from "not wanting to have sex". It's more like a relationship you might otherwise value but a person or circumstance in which you'd simply find outside the bounds of sexual. In hindsight, anything she had with me was fraught and loaded with resentment because neither of us had dealt with the foundational element - which was that despite loving me - she said "yes" to marriage when she really did not want to get married to me.
Any sex at all with me was characterized somehow as for me, not her. Performative. Now, imagine running that program for 10 years - tectonic scale - when you build a life with that person. A house, family, extended family, shared vision - a "good on paper" marriage. Marriage bundles all kinds of partnerships that might not otherwise be bundled. Imagine you jump in to have the wedding, the kids, etc - all the things - but you never truly join the MARRIAGE. How would you be? That's Mrs Apocrypha. So in her own justification - she felt she was "giving up sex" in her life (because she didn't want it with me) to continue to live with me, to co-parent, to have a household, extended family relationships, finances, vacations, goals, conversations - everything that is bundled with marriage. As she explained to the therapist in session one, "We have a GREAT marriage, except for one thing!". In her mind, she had given up on sex to save the marriage. She wasn't doing it do be a martyr, as you posed. She was tolerating the absence of sex in her marital relationship for the same reason I hadn't separated from her (yet). Because we valued "the marriage" - whatever that was - apart from that absence. How many of us have said the same on this board?
If you want to find the answer as to what madness possesses someone to think that way, you can look to virtually every member of this board for the answer. Look, ALL of us on this board have endured celibacy - in some case for decades - "for the sake of the marriage". Those of us outside of the fog look at that and say "DECADES? What marriage?". But we at least understand it intuitively - that despite a gaping absence in which there is CLEARLY no sex, we believe "a marriage" exists and an intention is in place to preserve it. Well, what is that? What exactly is "the marriage" for any of us, whether we haven't had sex with our partner for years because they WON'T, or whether we just don't want to have sex with our partner anymore (plenty of those situations across the years here too - where someone has "given up") but they still are "married"? I'm suggesting that it wasn't really much different with Mrs Apocrypha, and that my post marriage dating experience indicates this isn't really even all that rare, and may actually be the most common result, leading to a presentation of symptoms that mimic low libido, trauma (when having sex), and various dysfunctional interactions growing out from the disconnection is intuitively felt on both sides, and contempt sets in. It doesn't matter how much you impress upon your wife that divorce is a likely result if you don't center intimacy. If you flip the script and put her as the protagonist, she could as easily implore, "If you keep centering intimacy I don't feel with you, there's going to be divorce."Why? Because she absolutely cannot stand to have sex with you for whatever reason she isn't telling you or can't quite put her finger on, and if she has to put on that show one more time, she's going to hate you for fucking her when she clearly doesn't want to. And that's going to make her aversion and disgust for sex, for herself, and for you even worse. This isn't all that hard to understand from outside of it. It was nearly impossible for me to see when I was in it.
|
|
|
Post by mirrororchid on Nov 11, 2021 6:10:05 GMT -5
This is the part I will probably never understand. Having been told repeatedly that the marriage is in trouble if there is no intimacy or sex, and the outcome is divorce unless things change, why would a spouse who is seriously interested in saving or continuing in the marriage, choose to continue down that road? [...] You seem to be saying the martyr role is more important to them than the prospect on remaining a wife. [...] And I disagree with the idea the W is giving up sex for the sake of the marriage. I thought as you did. Then Mrs Apocrypha said to me, "Let's not diminish the fact that I also have have been sexless as well." I stupidly argued that she had ample opportunity with me, and could have slain all our dragons if she just said "why not?" instead of "No". In doing so, I demonstrated my failure to understand was the foundational truth - which is that she didn't see me as a sexual partner at all - and that this was a strain on our marriage for her as much as it was for me. This is different from "not wanting to have sex". It's more like a relationship you might otherwise value but a person or circumstance in which you'd simply find outside the bounds of sexual. In hindsight, anything she had with me was fraught and loaded with resentment because neither of us had dealt with the foundational element - which was that despite loving me - she said "yes" to marriage when she really did not want to get married to me.
Any sex at all with me was characterized somehow as for me, not her. Performative. Now, imagine running that program for 10 years - tectonic scale - when you build a life with that person. A house, family, extended family, shared vision - a "good on paper" marriage. Marriage bundles all kinds of partnerships that might not otherwise be bundled. Imagine you jump in to have the wedding, the kids, etc - all the things - but you never truly join the MARRIAGE. How would you be? That's Mrs Apocrypha. So in her own justification - she felt she was "giving up sex" in her life (because she didn't want it with me) to continue to live with me, to co-parent, to have a household, extended family relationships, finances, vacations, goals, conversations - everything that is bundled with marriage. As she explained to the therapist in session one, "We have a GREAT marriage, except for one thing!". In her mind, she had given up on sex to save the marriage. She wasn't doing it do be a martyr, as you posed. She was tolerating the absence of sex in her marital relationship for the same reason I hadn't separated from her (yet). Because we valued "the marriage" - whatever that was - apart from that absence. How many of us have said the same on this board?
If you want to find the answer as to what madness possesses someone to think that way, you can look to virtually every member of this board for the answer. Look, ALL of us on this board have endured celibacy - in some case for decades - "for the sake of the marriage". Those of us outside of the fog look at that and say "DECADES? What marriage?". But we at least understand it intuitively - that despite a gaping absence in which there is CLEARLY no sex, we believe "a marriage" exists and an intention is in place to preserve it. Well, what is that? What exactly is "the marriage" for any of us, whether we haven't had sex with our partner for years because they WON'T, or whether we just don't want to have sex with our partner anymore (plenty of those situations across the years here too - where someone has "given up") but they still are "married"? I'm suggesting that it wasn't really much different with Mrs Apocrypha, and that my post marriage dating experience indicates this isn't really even all that rare, and may actually be the most common result, leading to a presentation of symptoms that mimic low libido, trauma (when having sex), and various dysfunctional interactions growing out from the disconnection is intuitively felt on both sides, and contempt sets in. It doesn't matter how much you impress upon your wife that divorce is a likely result if you don't center intimacy. If you flip the script and put her as the protagonist, she could as easily implore, "If you keep centering intimacy I don't feel with you, there's going to be divorce."Why? Because she absolutely cannot stand to have sex with you for whatever reason she isn't telling you or can't quite put her finger on, and if she has to put on that show one more time, she's going to hate you for fucking her when she clearly doesn't want to. And that's going to make her aversion and disgust for sex, for herself, and for you even worse. This isn't all that hard to understand from outside of it. It was nearly impossible for me to see when I was in it. You've said this a lot in other threads. This one phrased it best so far. The equality of dedication to the platonic marriage components being equal was potent. The conviction that men leave marriages for lovers may have been at the heart of her utterly inept navigation of polyamory. Sabotaging your end of it was yet more service to the platonic marriage. This will have to become an episode of *REFUSED*. Happy to give credit, if you want it. Happy to leave you out too. Will rephrase, minus names, all that.
|
|
|
Post by Apocrypha on Nov 11, 2021 11:20:56 GMT -5
It doesn't matter how much you impress upon your wife that divorce is a likely result if you don't center intimacy. If you flip the script and put her as the protagonist, she could as easily implore, "If you keep centering intimacy I don't feel with you, there's going to be divorce."Why? Because she absolutely cannot stand to have sex with you for whatever reason she isn't telling you or can't quite put her finger on, and if she has to put on that show one more time, she's going to hate you for fucking her when she clearly doesn't want to. And that's going to make her aversion and disgust for sex, for herself, and for you even worse. You've said this a lot in other threads. This one phrased it best so far. The equality of dedication to the platonic marriage components being equal was potent. The conviction that men leave marriages for lovers may have been at the heart of her utterly inept navigation of polyamory. Sabotaging your end of it was yet more service to the platonic marriage. This will have to become an episode of *REFUSED*. Happy to give credit, if you want it. Happy to leave you out too. Will rephrase, minus names, all that. You are welcome to quote and reference my pseudonym all you like, of course. I've been trying to hone in on the best way to say it. I think a question we all have when coming here, is " why?" The assumption is that if we knew, we could fix it our broken partner for them and resume our desired lives. Baked into this, is an assumption that the disconnection is fixable, like reconnecting a cable that came loose. Their cable. The problem here is that attraction isn't readily "fixable" when it's gotten to the point of aversion, where someone overrides their own libido to avoid sex with you. Why do I beat this drum? Because for people who aren't into you - every attempt to center that reality and "correct" it as if it is a problem with their attraction - is going to further serve as a way to express the disconnection. And that disconnection and contempt is going to be expressed in response to the most massive, vulnerable, open, and intimate gesture you could possibly make in a marriage. "Let's talk about intimacy", sharing fantasies and turn ons, Date night? Couples' therapy? scheduled sex? Nice vacation? Opening the relationship? -- if the person isn't into you, all of these things are going to be a new canvas on which the lack of attraction and likely contempt is painted for you. We can all do our best to be as attractive a person as we can be - self-improvement, introspection, being an interesting person etc. My best advice to anyone in this situation would be to start early on becoming the next, best improved version of yourself for your next relationship! Who knows, maybe your next relationship will be with your current partner who says "Who's this guy?" But don't pin anything on that - you be you, you know? Because it's unlikely. I can honestly say my relationship with my wife after discovering her affair was a completely different relationship. But her disconnection to ME was still evident. And a year later, after we called time on trying to restore that relationship, with nothing to lose, we moved to the "open relationship" years - and that again was another completely different relationship. I wish more than anything that I had realized earlier in all that time that all of my efforts to fix things would end up fruitless. Being in an open relationship is often hard to manage - you need new muscles and disciplines and high level of attention. It's an emotional plate-spinning act with high stakes and trade offs. It's a question of whether it is worth it. No matter whether it's open on one side or the other or both - it's a MASSIVE gesture of trust and faith and intimacy to do this. Your partner could at any moment say she's ok with it and change her mind by the time you got back. Unless you are a sociopath, it's a hard thing to manage - it takes effort and discipline. When you go that far out on a limb, you really need to trust and understand that your partner isn't setting you up. So it comes down to - is it worth it? I think, though - hindsight - the marriage relationship with my wife - was not worth it. It wasn't worth the effort expended. Why? Because for her, *I* was the compromise. The marriage to me was the compromise that she was weathering, to enjoy the rest of the benefits associated. Benefits we both enjoyed for as long as I didn't realize that one thing. Unless you are into cuckold kink, nobody puts that amount of effort into a relationship while intending to be the consolation prize. It's quite a thing, after steeping in that for a decade or more, to finally be with an attractive person who is totally into you and comes to love you. A helluva drug - and at first read - it's like "opening the relationship was the answer". I felt like a golden god in bed - imagine a decade of trying to be better at sex like my family and life depended on it - finally released on an actual willing recipient who was already attracted to me. Imagine how I felt being told I was the best she'd ever had, and she'd had a lot. And believing it. I was the same person in both relationships. Imagine realizing, all that time, that the problem wasn't the sex - at least that's not the start of it. It was a thunderclap realization. The problem was what she thought of me. Or maybe, of being married to me. It doesn't matter if you open the relationship, if you go to therapy, date night, better parent, get fit, dress better, take chances again etc - none of that matters if the person who knows you doesn't like you or love you like a spouse. And you can't fix that for them. They have to decide - to choose. It's a "come to Jesus" kind of thing to decide to open and welcome it. I did that for her before I even asked to marry, whereas she never did with me - thought it would happen later. My asking her to marry (and her answer "why not?" - which is NOT A YES) was likely the first time she flinched at me, ever. Clinical aesexuality is applied in a tiny percentage of cases. Some medical things account for another small subsection. I'm convinced that the overwhelming majority of cases here are like mine - that mine is quite unremarkable. I've seen the same story told from others in the post sep world. I wish more than anything that I could have realized the foundational truth of my relationship earlier on, and saved myself the effort, time, and misplaced hope. This wasn't a problem I could ever have solved for her, for us, or for my family. She could have, maybe. But my effort in focusing on it wasn't helping.
|
|
|
Post by northstarmom on Nov 11, 2021 12:22:38 GMT -5
Apocrypha: "It doesn't matter if you open the relationship, if you go to therapy, date night, better parent, get fit, dress better, take chances again etc - none of that matters if the person who knows you doesn't like you or love you like a spouse. And you can't fix that for them. They have to decide - to choose. "
They can't choose to love or lust after you. After all, YOU can't choose whom you love or feel desire for. The only choice one can make is whether to marry or stay married to a person whom one doesn't love or desire.
|
|
|
Post by mirrororchid on Nov 12, 2021 4:26:38 GMT -5
...The equality of dedication to the platonic marriage components being equal was potent. The conviction that men leave marriages for lovers may have been at the heart of her utterly inept navigation of polyamory. Sabotaging your end of it was yet more service to the platonic marriage... ... an assumption that the disconnection is fixable, like reconnecting a cable that came loose. Their cable. The problem here is that attraction isn't readily "fixable" when it's gotten to the point of aversion, where someone overrides their own libido to avoid sex with you. ... with nothing to lose, we moved to the "open relationship" years - and that again was another completely different relationship. I wish more than anything that I had realized earlier in all that time that all of my efforts to fix things would end up fruitless... ...- it's like "opening the relationship was the answer". ...the problem wasn't the sex - at least that's not the start of it...The problem was what she thought of me. Or being married to me. It doesn't matter if you open the relationship,... if the person who knows you doesn't...love you like a spouse. And you can't fix that for them. They have to decide - to choose... ...I'm convinced that the overwhelming majority of cases here are like mine - that mine is quite unremarkable...I wish...that I could have realized the foundational truth of my relationship earlier on... This wasn't a problem I could ever have solved for her, for us, or for my family. She could have, maybe. But my effort in focusing on it wasn't helping. I'm similarly convinced most situations are like yours, based on reports here at ILIAM, Experience Project, and Similar Worlds. I'm in the midst of a reset approaching two years. My unilaterally opening our marriage (with no affair actually consummated before the reset) seems to have been instrumental. Question then is... how to know when one is in a relationship where bending by the refuser is a possibility? My wife expressed sympathy for my unhappiness. Not sure if sex averse spouses do this. She didn't shame me for normal libido. She didn't bring up the problem, but didn't change the subject when I did. She admitted her suggested fixes had failed. Not sure if these are universal signals of embers that can be coaxed into warmth once more. Ladies have more luck with resets and fixes. It could be of interest to find whether such expressions of sympathy are signs to look for that effort may be worthwhile. Then again, my efforts didn't matter until I called Mrs. MirrorOrchid's bluff about divorcing over infidelity and stopping just short. If opening the marriage eventually resolves sexless marriages, your way, or mine, perhaps it can serve as an accelerant. Pull that trigger early to put an end to the quixotic mission of creating desire in a refuser. Instead, give them someone else's desire to compete with, if they wish. Of course, always bearing Baza's worthy, ever present advice: "check with legal counsel to see what divorce would look like for you" in case the deployment of such a tactic is the kind of thing that the refuser was hoping for.
|
|
|
Post by Apocrypha on Nov 12, 2021 10:34:16 GMT -5
Apocrypha: "It doesn't matter if you open the relationship, if you go to therapy, date night, better parent, get fit, dress better, take chances again etc - none of that matters if the person who knows you doesn't like you or love you like a spouse. And you can't fix that for them. They have to decide - to choose. " They can't choose to love or lust after you. After all, YOU can't choose whom you love or feel desire for. The only choice one can make is whether to marry or stay married to a person whom one doesn't love or desire. Yes, they cannot choose to lust. But love is complicated. My own decision to marry involved a choice - a conscious reframing of my sense of possibility in that relationship. I'm not a "soul mates" kind of person - I've been around enough to realize that people can love and be happy with different people. I have a friend who looks at marriage like feeling locked in, sees the doors closing - the possible alternatives evaporating. For her, those alternative lives are exciting. And, I get it. When I've gotten serious in a relationship - moving from "a drink" to "a date" to "an assumed date" and exclusivity - I notice those doors closing too. The thing that eludes my friend (who has never been married), is that she either doesn't see or doesn't value the different possibilities and opportunities that result from a long term commitment in a deep relationship format. With that context in mind, the discovery of that mindset was the tipping point for me in deciding to marry. It's hard to explain, but for me, it was like falling in love all over again, when I was already in the relationship. I've heard it among my Christian friends as "coming to Jesus". For me, it was a feeling that bloomed in my heart when I was returning home from a business trip as a young man - and an urgency to see my girlfriend/partner. I'd been "the refuser" and sex had been a serious issue for us. Letting go and "choosing her" changed everything about how I felt about her, including my sense of attraction, lust etc. It did feel like a choice, whether it was or not. But it was my choice - spawned by a few external reflections - and not goosed along by her. I'd love to say it was a happily ever after - but obviously it was not.
|
|