|
Post by carl on Oct 27, 2021 13:28:17 GMT -5
What makes you think you know so much about my partner…? Or maybe your opinions more likely closely reflect your own experiences as I assure you mine are quite different. You see there’s more than one picture of the world. I’d say my wife just has a low sex drive that dries up at the slightest of little stresses and therefore isn’t really capable of a normal sex life. I think she is too proud to admit and so pathetically tries to blame it on anybody she can. I am just comparing her with other women I met before I married her.
|
|
|
Post by isthisit on Oct 28, 2021 8:23:24 GMT -5
I think it depends a little on what I ever expected. I had always seen sex as the icing on the cake, ie something fantastic, but not a necessity. Its some womens twist on it that no man could be content without it but the truth is you can be. Content that is. It seems to be in some womens interests to exaggerate whats required and on offer beyond any drive they possess. I still love sex as much as ever and if circumstances allowed I’d be grateful. But until then I’ll survive and the W will have to pull her weight for a change. I don't think any of that exists within a man/wife union though. It's not the expectation and there isn't context or resources to perpetuate it. It's often thought of as indifference on the part of the averse partner - but it I don't think that's supported by the evidence in most cases. Most cases (at least the ones that are bad enough to end up here) risk the marriage, the family, the home. That's not small. That's not indifference or a bit of a mismatch in libido. It's more that it suggests that it is incredibly important - more important than risking marriage, family and home - to NOT have sex with one's partner.
Think of the scale of disgust/aversion that must entail. But zooming out from the sex, and looking at why sex isn't wanted - KNOWING that it's THAT IMPORTANT to your spouse to avoid sex with you, or to ensure that you know she HATES it with you if she acquiesces - to override her own sexual libido to avoid sex with you - but still go on sleeping with each other, undressing in front of each other, and providing an otherwise intimate relationship - how do you think that will affect you over the long term? So while for some members your points will resonate, it good to remember that for many they will not. We are a broad church and sweeping generalisations are not helpful. I read stories from our brothers and sisters here of their H/W's who are not putting their marriages on the line at all, because they have learned that they can emotionally abuse and neglect our members to their heart's content with complete confidence that nothing whatsoever is a risk. Members of this community accept and tolerate this for diverse reasons which are all legitimate, their choice and frankly should be respected. It might sounds nuts to some of us but people will all act when is right for them and not before, or not act at all if that is their assessment of the risks and benefits to them. I also disagree that all refusers refuse because they "hate" sex with their spouse. Many do sure, but there are those generalisations again. I read stories which sound to me (I can never know as it is not my life) as though some of these refusers just like controlling their partner much more than they like sex. Sometimes just for the kick of it, or for material gain, physical or mental health issues, and some of them simply sound to me like sick puppies who would benefit from a mental health assessment. So, good to remember that there are other explanations for avoidance other than they "hate" sex with their spouse. There is a temptation to project our own lived experiences onto others and it is good to guard against that.
|
|
|
Post by Apocrypha on Oct 28, 2021 14:09:17 GMT -5
So while for some members your points will resonate, it good to remember that for many they will not. We are a broad church and sweeping generalisations are not helpful You came to a general BBS in which people offer a couple paragraphs of one-sided testimony, to point out that someone's response to that testimony failed to be all-encompassing to all situations. How helpful do you think that is? What percentage fits your threshold for an observation or question that might prove generally useful on a general BBS? Would 50% be enough? 70%? Would 99% work? It's still not "all" - so maybe still not to earn the right (in your eyes) to offer a comment. I read stories from our brothers and sisters here of their H/W's who are not putting their marriages on the line at all, because they have learned that they can emotionally abuse and neglect our members to their heart's content with complete confidence that nothing whatsoever is a risk. Members of this community accept and tolerate this for diverse reasons which are all legitimate, their choice and frankly should be respected. It might sounds nuts to some of us but people will all act when is right for them and not before, or not act at all if that is their assessment of the risks and benefits to them. Are you suggesting that if people stick in their marriage that I'm somehow telling them they are idiots? If so, I don't think I've ever advised people on whether they should split or stick. I can't think of a single time I've done that in seven years. Nor have I made a comment on the appropriateness of the action they've taken or not taken. Making informed choices is my goal. Where did you read " all", as in 100%? What's your threshold % for an observation to be true enough to be generally useful on a BBS? Do you think anyone walks into a therapist's office and spills their guts on a couch with perfect clarity and insight into their own motivations and behaviors, and an accurate read on what's going on around them? It's not anyone's job, nor is it kindness, to carte blanche validate testimony.The point of my challenge here isn't to suggest that the avoidance is without reason. There IS a reason - you just don't know what it is, and most people tend to be unreliable narrators in this kind of deal. Maybe - to your point - they don't want to have sex with their spouse because they think it will reduce their control. Maybe they don't want it because they are nuts - sure. But regardless of the upstream reason, it should obviously be really important to them not to have sex with their spouse. Nearly all initial propositions of "my partner just hates sex" begin with their assumption of indifference on the part of the partner. Indifference, though, is in the camp of "why not?" rather than in the camp of "I'd rather divorce you, risk losing my home and splitting my family rather than having sex with you". I characterized sex avoidance in a marriage as "hate" in this case because it's a word that mostly fits the size of the aversion, given what's at stake. Maybe you have a better one in mind (but did not offer it), but I'm going with it for now because it's close enough. There are all kinds of reasons that a spouse "hates" having sex with a spouse to the degree that they will risk the marriage. The reasons you've outlined above could be true - sick puppies, mental health etc - but you are offering a distinction without a practical difference, IMO. I'm frustrated and discouraged with your take isthisit . And really not clear on your intent.
|
|
|
Post by isthisit on Oct 28, 2021 15:38:18 GMT -5
Gosh, are you flirting with me?
My point is that everyone’s situation is different and we should hesitate to make assumptions or judgements about circumstances we cannot know.
No-one’s view or opinion has hegemony over anyone else’s regardless of what they have been through, know, or think they know. I am free to make my interpretations of what is said here, as are you and everyone else. With equity, consideration, kindness and acceptance of a range of views.
|
|
|
Post by Apocrypha on Oct 28, 2021 16:21:51 GMT -5
Gosh, are you flirting with me? My point is that everyone’s situation is different and we should hesitate to make assumptions or judgements about circumstances we cannot know. No-one’s view or opinion has hegemony over anyone else’s regardless of what they have been through, know, or think they know. I am free to make my interpretations of what is said here, as are you and everyone else. With equity, consideration, kindness and acceptance of a range of views. As is anyone, in any conversation. Look, isthisit . If you want to take a swing at something I've said somewhere, I'm game to discuss. But, it should be something I've actually said, rather than what you speculate I really meant. But, have an argument. Support your point. How does one respond with "equity"? What makes you believe that people (people other other than you, of course) are not applying "consideration"? What makes you think that anyone's commentary here is motivated by something other than kindness? Why must I "accept" testimony at face value? Why do you think my acceptance of someone else's claim is so important? Important to whom? If I apply my "consideration" to an unlikely claim, there is a significant risk is that I may not "accept" it as true. So how do I do both? Again, not really clear on what you are going for here, other than it seems vaguely spicy, difficult to pin, and is directed at me personally.
|
|
|
Post by isthisit on Oct 29, 2021 1:19:31 GMT -5
Nope, I am not going to argue with you, nor am I going to explain or justify myself or my comments. My points are written clearly, and God help us, succinctly.
I am allowed to interpret what is said here differently to you. This makes neither of us right or wrong. But everyone’s voice should be freely heard and respected.
|
|
|
Post by Apocrypha on Oct 29, 2021 10:10:55 GMT -5
Nope, I am not going to argue with you, nor am I going to explain or justify myself or my comments. My points are written clearly, and God help us, succinctly. I am allowed to interpret what is said here differently to you. This makes neither of us right or wrong. But everyone’s voice should be freely heard and respected. Stop with the passive-aggressive sniping while claiming you are "not going to argue" - " but everyone's voice should be freely heard or respected". This is an accusation, and I think you can own it. No one has even made a claim that you "aren't allowed to interpret what is said here differently". Your comment amounts to you gatekeeping about what you think isn't appropriate participation, while you ascribe motives ungenerously. That's ironic, given that your comment is ostensibly about ensuring everyone's voice is "freely heard" and "respected". Look in the mirror, isthisit . How about, instead of trying to limit what other people say and the different interpretations they offer, you participate with your own observations, experiences and takes, while accepting that others might not agree? In other words, try making a better argument or a better challenge and people can go with what seems best or right? If you disagree with someone's take, then make a case as to why that is so, and don't be alarmed if a discussion happens that explores or tests a claim.
|
|
|
Post by mirrororchid on Nov 1, 2021 5:04:45 GMT -5
What makes you think you know so much about my partner…? Or maybe your opinions more likely closely reflect your own experiences as I assure you mine are quite different. You see there’s more than one picture of the world. I’d say my wife just has a low sex drive that dries up at the slightest of little stresses and therefore isn’t really capable of a normal sex life... The heat going on here looked to me like an attempt at defense of Carl's interpretation of events and a bit of umbrage at Apocrypha's alternative; that interpretation being a frequent one, that refusers commonly (in his experience) have lively sex lives after they leave their refused spouse. Hurts like hell to entertain the possibility, but in the unfortunate event it's accurate, it could lead to resolution far more quickly. I've personally read replies from Apocrypha with very similar wording. In none of these other responses had he listed all the other possibilities, nor denied any alternatives could be true. I think he brings his up, yes, because it happened to him, but also because it happened to many of his subsequent lovers, surprised with their own biological responses. But he also brings it up because it is a carbonado-hard truth he really wants to help people with by sharing it, despite the painful emotions associated with the potential revelation. Sharing this possibility is an unpleasant job and Apocrypha's willingness to do so is a public service. In every case where he's right, failing to do so causes pointless suffering; likely more suffering than the temporary sting of a perceived slight from a well-meaning anonymous internet commenter. Carl may very well not be in this situation. If he were, I'm not sure how much of his life would change. Getting an answer to "why chasing" doesn't mean sex resumes, but it can be a useful first step in selecting from the tiny menu: stay, outsource, leave. Carl has already taken many steps to choose any of the three options any time he pleases through his efforts to exploit the other aspects of life outside the carnal.
|
|
|
Post by Apocrypha on Nov 1, 2021 9:17:03 GMT -5
What makes you think you know so much about my partner…? Or maybe your opinions more likely closely reflect your own experiences as I assure you mine are quite different. You see there’s more than one picture of the world. I’d say my wife just has a low sex drive that dries up at the slightest of little stresses and therefore isn’t really capable of a normal sex life. I think she is too proud to admit and so pathetically tries to blame it on anybody she can. I am just comparing her with other women I met before I married her. If you read the responses I've posed to your statements carefully, you'd see that I've just been asking questions and testing against your own statements about her.
My general elevator pitch on this board: It's often thought of as indifference on the part of the averse partner - but this is rarely supported by evidence in the scenarios described. Most cases risk the marriage, the family, the home. That's not small. That's not indifference or a bit of a mismatch in libido. It suggests that it is incredibly important to NOT have sex with one's partner.What have I seen in the post-marriage dating market that supports this? I have dated a LOT across 7 years. Almost all of these low libido partners find their libido again. Almost all of them had not always been low libido. They seemed normal enough prior to some version of the wedding/baby/house/move to another city, the affair that happened on that business trip/the humiliating incident/ the unemployment/ that time she/she pushed or slapped her etc. Then they became "low libido"" I've literally met "low libido" (sexless for years) women who copped to a gang bang at swinger club, post-marriage! Several with threesomes. Most with normal, healthy sexual appetites at the time of my meeting them. Almost all of them either were celibate with their husbands but knew enough that they weren't into them, or (more often) felt that they were just broken or cold fish. Some of them, including a dear friend and past lover, had been rejected by their own partners for years - only to see their partner shack up and move in within a month of separating. To rub salt in it - that one in particular (the averse husband), had himself had an affair and contracted an STI early in the marriage - which then became a celibate one. Some have reason to believe that their partner was "low libido" prior to marriage - as in - there was never a point to imagine restoring the marriage to if things worked out. I've seen this a few times, where it starts bad and ends up worse after marriage. I'm inclined to think that this is because they really weren't into that person in the first place, but went along with the marriage stuff because it seemed the thing to do. I've felt indifferent to sex with various partners who I wasn't overly lusting for or for whom I felt were a less than ideal match for various reasons. On those occasions where that partner clearly wanted and asked for sex with me, needed it - and when it was clearly understood that I found long term prospects unlikely - I have said "yes, or why not?" Indifference can be swayed to "yes" without too much work, especially if something small is at stake. This is what leads me to think that saying "No", across months and years, with everything at stake - that's unlikely to simply be low libido or indifference. And this is partly why a celibate marriage is so terribly damaging across the long term, though it's hard to pin exactly what it it is. People focus on the "I'm gnawing my own arm off" feeling of sexual deprivation or they anaesthetize themselves into celibate contentment (you totally can do that). But I think there's value in considering what it's like to try to fall asleep each night beside a person who - every day - shows they'd rather not choose to say "yes". This kind of rejection goes well beyond the physical sensation. It's not even that they don't have sex or didn't have sex with their partner. It's that they singularly wouldn't. As many find out, not even if they were horny.A lot of people start in their first year or so coming here, thinking it's somehow about enduring that physical absence (which, again - like priests and nuns - is something you could do, if it was just that). Their attention and efforts are fixed there. BUT, it strikes me that it's mostly like firefighters aiming the hose to sprinkle the top of the flames, rather than the burning base. It's tempting - romantic even - to enjoy the optimism in enlisting in therapy with your spouse and solve this "absence of libido/sex" problem together - as if one of you got cancer and you are fighting it on the same side. Such a frame offers benefits to the refused - it can help you feel good about yourself. Virtuous even. A lesser partner would dump their sex-averse-afflicted spouse. Thus, the longer you endure celibacy together demonstrating your loyalty, the STRONGER the case of cosmic justice is - of how PERFECT a partner you are - because no one else would ever tolerate this. Anyway - that's what I think generally happens - and it's a harsh toke - I agree. I really don't know about the specifics in your case - your descriptions are sparse except for your speculations on your partner's mindset. If they serve you, then great. As you've indicated upthread - you apparently don't see this as much of a problem. I asked you why you looked it up online then, but this isn't an interrogation and you don't need to answer. If it's working for you, then more power to you! Keep it up! And so a lot of time can be spent on a feedback loop like this without going anywhere, intensely pulling in opposite directions until something truly hurtful happens.
|
|
|
Post by carl on Nov 1, 2021 19:37:22 GMT -5
No, my wife is just frigid. Some women simply are. Its not their fault but they often talk big or appear highly sexed to hide the truth. It sounds like you’ve met a few if you’re not one yourself. You certainly talk a lot.
|
|
|
Post by Apocrypha on Nov 1, 2021 20:22:34 GMT -5
No, my wife is just frigid. Some women simply are. Its not their fault but they often talk big or appear highly sexed to hide the truth. It sounds like you’ve met a few if you’re not one yourself. You certainly talk a lot. I see. I "talk big" to hide the truth that I might be frigid, myself. Also, frigid women "appear highly sexed" to hide the truth of their frigidity. I'll do what the forum parameters allow to ensure that my participation on this discussion board won't trouble you further, carl .
|
|
|
Post by ironhamster on Nov 5, 2021 21:51:41 GMT -5
carl, your wife is whatever she is. There are asexual people. I know one woman that explains herself as a guaranteed disappointment in any intimate relationship. Some asexuals are not that honest. I think there is truth that often there is a mismatch in love languages, and one partner shuts down because they are not getting their needs met. So, they are frigid to the one person in their life that they have promised intimacy to. It is a bitter pill to swallow to think of the one person that caused to much emotional damage to go off and enjoy being sexual with someone else.
|
|
|
Post by carl on Nov 9, 2021 18:43:24 GMT -5
Its not a bitter pill to swallow. I am indifferent to what might make you bitter. I don’t think that way. But I think thats a misconception that my wife would enjoy sex with somebody else. I mean if she was in just the exact right circumstances, a new and interesting relationship, the sun was out and the wind blowing in the right direction then I am sure she’d make an effort maybe and desperately hope to feel sexual. Anything more than that would be wishful thinking old fella, but it sounds like you still have a lot of wishes going on in your head. Its just fantasy in your head. But I guess your used to that. Never mind.
|
|
|
Post by cagedadventurer on Nov 9, 2021 23:34:18 GMT -5
Wow, it appears Carl is a difficult of not impossible conversationalist; and not too clued in to the purpose of the forum. He may be indifferent with his W, but sure isn't indifferent with otherwise friendly strangers here. Carl, if you knew any of the respondents here via history, you'd possibly be aware of how irreverent your comments are. You would do well to take a calibre test revealing your utter lack of empathy...if you even cared to care about others that is.
|
|
|
Post by Handy on Nov 10, 2021 0:40:21 GMT -5
No, my wife is just frigid. Some women simply are. Its not their fault but they often talk big or appear highly sexed to hide the truth.
I have read and understand that some women and just go off sex. Medical, financial, and relationship issues some times cause SMs. It happens to men too..
Lets have more respect for Carl's POV
|
|