|
Starving…
Mar 1, 2022 22:16:22 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by ironhamster on Mar 1, 2022 22:16:22 GMT -5
Five times a week while trying to conceive, rejected101. At least you got that as a small consolation. I can tell you the date and hour of conception for each child, because there was nothing on either side. Selfish is a good descriptive word, there. I remember relationship advice like, if you give her a rose every day to win her, you need to give her a rose every day to keep her. Naturally, that doesn't only apply to roses, or to women, and sadly, a refuser can still enforce none-ogamy on us for years, or even decades.
|
|
|
Post by rejected101 on Mar 1, 2022 23:33:47 GMT -5
Five times a week while trying to conceive, rejected101. At least you got that as a small consolation. I can tell you the date and hour of conception for each child, because there was nothing on either side. Selfish is a good descriptive word, there. I remember relationship advice like, if you give her a rose every day to win her, you need to give her a rose every day to keep her. Naturally, that doesn't only apply to roses, or to women, and sadly, a refuser can still enforce none-ogamy on us for years, or even decades. Yep it’s true. There was one week where during baby making she achieved it. Naturally when baby was conceived it dried up and never ever returned. You could say I was lucky to get what I did but equally you could say I was incredibly stupid for not working out that sex was exceptionally easy and accessible IF it served a purpose for…..HER. I was indeed very very very stupid! I also remember that we didn’t have sex all the way through pregnancy (reasonable you might say given all the changes going on her body). Except when we were nearing due date the midwife told her “one good way to initiate labour is, sex”. She hopped on me that night and showed zero sign of discomfort. Once again, sex was absolutely no probs if she had a need or a reason to do it.
|
|
|
Post by northstarmom on Mar 2, 2022 1:10:04 GMT -5
rejected101: "U also remember that we didn’t have sex all the way through pregnancy (reasonable you might say given all the changes going on her body)."
Not reasonable at all unless she was at risk of miscarriage. In fact, some women get more horny while pregnant.
|
|
|
Post by isthisit on Mar 2, 2022 2:04:25 GMT -5
rejected101: "U also remember that we didn’t have sex all the way through pregnancy (reasonable you might say given all the changes going on her body)." Not reasonable at all unless she was at risk of miscarriage. In fact, some women get more horny while pregnant. I strongly disagree. Pregnancy is rarely one thing, but a multitude of experiences and that is what I think rejected101 was referring to. At times those hormones drove me crazy and I was virtually demanding sex 3,4,5 times a day. At other times I felt violently nauseous and could not even consider it. Towards the end I had a variety of high/low BP and symphesis pubis which made sitting in a damn chair painful, let alone anything more athletic. Other women will have different examples. As a decent human being, H was happy to accommodate it all. So risk of miscarriage is not the only reasonable reason for a woman to be reluctant to engage in sex during pregnancy. This view is far too binary for me. Where loss of the pregnancy is an issue there are plenty of other ways to have fun besides PIV anyway. Of course, where a woman does use it as a blanket excuse for 40 weeks- it’s just that, an excuse. There are nearly always windows of calm between the awful bits and this is where your and your H’s sexual needs get to come first. And, yeah the midwife is spot on. Sex in late pregnancy certainly can induce labour. As I found to my cost at 38/40. Turns out going on top wasn’t such a cool idea.
|
|
|
Post by northstarmom on Mar 2, 2022 10:08:41 GMT -5
rejected101: "U also remember that we didn’t have sex all the way through pregnancy (reasonable you might say given all the changes going on her body)."
isthisit :"I strongly disagree. Pregnancy is rarely one thing, but a multitude of experiences and that is what I think rejected101 was referring to. "
Again, unless she was at risk of miscarriage, there was no excuse for not having sex at all during her ENTIRE pregnancy. I've been pregnant twice. Yes, the body goes through changes but thinking it's normal to not have sex (or want sex) during one's entire pregnancy is BS.
|
|
|
Starving…
Mar 2, 2022 14:02:24 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by TheGreatContender -aka Daddeeo on Mar 2, 2022 14:02:24 GMT -5
FWIW... in my LTR pregnant sex was frequent. It did a number on my wife's hormones and she was nonstop willing and able. rejected101: "U also remember that we didn’t have sex all the way through pregnancy (reasonable you might say given all the changes going on her body)." isthisit :"I strongly disagree. Pregnancy is rarely one thing, but a multitude of experiences and that is what I think rejected101 was referring to. " Again, unless she was at risk of miscarriage, there was no excuse for not having sex at all during her ENTIRE pregnancy. I've been pregnant twice. Yes, the body goes through changes but thinking it's normal to not have sex (or want sex) during one's entire pregnancy is BS.
|
|
|
Post by Apocrypha on Mar 2, 2022 14:31:25 GMT -5
Five times a week while trying to conceive, rejected101 . At least you got that as a small consolation. I can tell you the date and hour of conception for each child, because there was nothing on either side. Selfish is a good descriptive word, there. I remember relationship advice like, if you give her a rose every day to win her, you need to give her a rose every day to keep her. Naturally, that doesn't only apply to roses, or to women, and sadly, a refuser can still enforce none-ogamy on us for years, or even decades. Yep it’s true. There was one week where during baby making she achieved it. Naturally when baby was conceived it dried up and never ever returned. You could say I was lucky to get what I did but equally you could say I was incredibly stupid for not working out that sex was exceptionally easy and accessible IF it served a purpose for…..HER. I was indeed very very very stupid! I also remember that we didn’t have sex all the way through pregnancy (reasonable you might say given all the changes going on her body). Except when we were nearing due date the midwife told her “one good way to initiate labour is, sex”. She hopped on me that night and showed zero sign of discomfort. Once again, sex was absolutely no probs if she had a need or a reason to do it. ironhamster : - I sometimes make these two points because I think they're important in the way people frame and scale the issue they are dealing with here. 1. There is no "us" when discussing this. You are likely speaking of it in terms of "people who act the same way", but I think some people are inclined to read this approach this as a team affinity. Framing it this way, I believe, blinds people to the dynamics of their specific relationships. Change the relationship or the people in it, and this affinity and the problem is likely to also change. I don't think most "refusers" see themselves as on that team. I think they see themselves as also being as trapped in an intimacy averse marriage. I'm sure others disagree with this view - it's debatable and variable - but I think it's important to be open to this if people want to understand what their partner is feeling and what they are likely to do, and why the efforts at fixing are almost always futile. 2. A refuser does not enforce celibacy. The celibacy only occurs because the intimately abandoned partner chooses celibacy over other expensive or risky options, for now. They perceive the cost of choosing something else to be higher than they want to pay, until they don't. As I and others have discovered, sometimes the refuser isn't even celibate. rejected101: A few years of reflecting on how sex declined in my own relationship, including across pregnancies led me to this observation when I zoomed out. It was true that sex declined precipitously when my wife became pregnant, and then more when we had our first kid. It went critical at her second pregnancy and virtually flatlined into a perpetual, marriage-threatening crisis of a total loss of intimacy (including kissing and hugs) after the birth of our second and final. But looking harder, I noticed a few other things. After our engagement, her own robust libido declined to match mine. On the day of the wedding and thereafter, the quality and enthusiasm of the sex she wanted dramatically dropped. In fact, a number of spicier / more vulnerable things she wanted to do and enjoyed, immediately went off the menu. When we bought a house, it dropped. Wben we moved our lives to a new city, it improved for a bit and then dropped. Basically, every time we increased our tangible and practical investment in our lives together - the sex dropped. It wasn't just with pregnancy. I considered a comment she made on our honeymoon, in which - out of the blue - she suggested she wanted to stay and become a divemaster. Or play guitar as an entertainer. I recalled her, on that same honeymoon, enquire casually with me about working abroad for 6 months at a time and what my views were. I think the reason I couldn't fix any of the sex issues in my marriage is because I never looked at the problem in its full scope and scale. 13 years in, and it seems clear as day to me that she never wanted to be married in the first place. At least, not to me. That's why it went off and really never had a chance. She never joined the marriage. I often find that zooming out into a long term and wide angle examination of the relationship history that people in this situation end up discovering all kinds of things that make sense like this, like I did.
|
|
|
Post by mirrororchid on Mar 4, 2022 7:10:20 GMT -5
Asexuality has now been linked to a sexual dysfunction and mental health. Go on aven and say that and you’ll be banned for citing scientific studies as they don’t like being “invalidated”. I knew that being later in birth order (having older brothers) increases your odds of being homosexual. An evolutionary mechanism that could be in play is to reduce inbreeding by reducing the number of sons that may be impregnating women. Asexuality would serve the same purpose. I just wondered if there would be correlation with asexuality too. Bam! pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24045903/Scientists could argue that both homosexuality and asexuality is "natural" this way. I'd think that would be perfectly validating. Devout Christians will, no doubt, take issue. There are points of impasse, to be sure. As for the AVEN crowd, I could see how two asexuals taking vows could be some of the most wholesome partnerships on the planet. Why in holy hell would you deliberately install a time bomb like libido into your marriage? This folly would not necessarily be selfish. I could see that as being some kind of insanity, deluding yourself into believing your sexual spouse can be "shown the light" of the pointlessness of sex without procreation. "Redirecting your energy"! They could see themselves as innocent angels with great altruism in mind. They love you dearly! They want to guide you towards a life free of this craving. All desire is suffering says Siddhartha. But if one fails to exterminate the craving, denying it does not reduce, but rather, magnify suffering. Their quest to evangelize celibacy has a horrible alternative outcome. They're not wrong in principle, mind you. Sex is stupid. We're probably the worse for it. Then again, if we didn't need to eat, drink, or sleep, we'd save a lot of time and be able to redirect a lot more energy to constructive activity that way too. But being hungry, tired, or randy all are undeniably distracting and adversely affect the quality of any more useful activity you'd be inclined to engage in. They do not or cannot know what it's like any more than a child would understand why people want to rub their bodies together naked. It would sound superlatively weird. "Why do you like to do that?" they would ask with utter bafflement. We could ask "Why do you eat?" We don't eat to survive, we eat to stop hunger. Hunger is a very unpleasant warning sign. Feeling sexual is a warning that your genome is in danger of dying too. It's a milder, less urgent discomfort, but the analogy is not entirely inaccurate. (maybe others experience randiness differently.)
|
|
|
Post by worksforme2 on Mar 4, 2022 9:18:59 GMT -5
Asexuality has now been linked to a sexual dysfunction and mental health. Go on aven and say that and you’ll be banned for citing scientific studies as they don’t like being “invalidated”. I knew that being later in birth order (having older brothers) increases your odds of being homosexual. An evolutionary mechanism that could be in play is to reduce inbreeding by reducing the number of sons that may be impregnating women. Asexuality would serve the same purpose. I just wondered if there would be correlation with asexuality too. Bam! pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24045903/Scientists could argue that both homosexuality and asexuality is "natural" this way. I'd think that would be perfectly validating. Devout Christians will, no doubt, take issue. As a Christian and a I hope a thinking man, I would take issue with this statement. Your premise seems to suggest that homosexuality can be and is brought about by independent motivation on the part of sperm carrying homosexual genes, (by somehow being aware of their older siblings' hetero sexual orientation), to be so motivated they swim faster or penetrate the protective covering surrounding an egg 1st. And if that fails then somehow at a later date and at the genetic level one's genes or one's sexual orientation at a cognitive level makes a decision to play for the other team and become homosexual. That strikes me as a scientifically unsound premise. Or have I misinterpreted what you are saying?
|
|
|
Post by mirrororchid on Mar 7, 2022 6:00:01 GMT -5
I knew that being later in birth order (having older brothers) increases your odds of being homosexual. An evolutionary mechanism that could be in play is to reduce inbreeding by reducing the number of sons that may be impregnating women. Asexuality would serve the same purpose. I just wondered if there would be correlation with asexuality too. Bam! pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24045903/Scientists could argue that both homosexuality and asexuality is "natural" this way. I'd think that would be perfectly validating. Devout Christians will, no doubt, take issue. As a Christian and a I hope a thinking man, I would take issue with this statement. Your premise seems to suggest that homosexuality can be and is brought about by independent motivation on the part of sperm carrying homosexual genes, (by somehow being aware of their older siblings' hetero sexual orientation), to be so motivated they swim faster or penetrate the protective covering surrounding an egg 1st. And if that fails then somehow at a later date and at the genetic level one's genes or one's sexual orientation at a cognitive level makes a decision to play for the other team and become homosexual. That strikes me as a scientifically unsound premise. Or have I misinterpreted what you are saying? Nope-and it's the latter. Genes get turned on and off at the genetic level routinely. All Y chromosome sperm have the capability of producing homosexual sons. Some males will be more susceptible to being switched, some less so. You can have a third brother who becomes gay, while his younger brother is straight. My orientation wasn't cognitive at all. I don't suspect anyone's is. One just admires particular physical traits. A generalized love at first sight. As devout some sects of Christianity teach, expression of sexuality is indeed cognitive. Gay men can perform heterosexual acts when called upon to do so. Some more readily than others and some only temporarily and with great incentives. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraternal_birth_order_and_male_sexual_orientation#:~:text=Fraternal%20birth%20order%20has%20been,will%20have%20a%20homosexual%20orientation. Biochemical evidence for this hypothesis was identified in 2017, finding mothers with a gay son, particularly those with older brothers, had heightened levels of antibodies to the NLGN4Y Y-protein than mothers with heterosexual sons.[1][2] The effect becomes stronger with each additional male pregnancy, with odds of the next son being gay increasing by 38–48%.
|
|
|
Post by lightbeam3076 on Mar 13, 2022 23:39:29 GMT -5
Yep it’s true. There was one week where during baby making she achieved it. Naturally when baby was conceived it dried up and never ever returned. You could say I was lucky to get what I did but equally you could say I was incredibly stupid for not working out that sex was exceptionally easy and accessible IF it served a purpose for…..HER. I was indeed very very very stupid! I also remember that we didn’t have sex all the way through pregnancy (reasonable you might say given all the changes going on her body). Except when we were nearing due date the midwife told her “one good way to initiate labour is, sex”. She hopped on me that night and showed zero sign of discomfort. Once again, sex was absolutely no probs if she had a need or a reason to do it. ironhamster : - I sometimes make these two points because I think they're important in the way people frame and scale the issue they are dealing with here. 1. There is no "us" when discussing this. You are likely speaking of it in terms of "people who act the same way", but I think some people are inclined to read this approach this as a team affinity. Framing it this way, I believe, blinds people to the dynamics of their specific relationships. Change the relationship or the people in it, and this affinity and the problem is likely to also change. I don't think most "refusers" see themselves as on that team. I think they see themselves as also being as trapped in an intimacy averse marriage. I'm sure others disagree with this view - it's debatable and variable - but I think it's important to be open to this if people want to understand what their partner is feeling and what they are likely to do, and why the efforts at fixing are almost always futile. 2. A refuser does not enforce celibacy. The celibacy only occurs because the intimately abandoned partner chooses celibacy over other expensive or risky options, for now. They perceive the cost of choosing something else to be higher than they want to pay, until they don't. As I and others have discovered, sometimes the refuser isn't even celibate. rejected101 : A few years of reflecting on how sex declined in my own relationship, including across pregnancies led me to this observation when I zoomed out. It was true that sex declined precipitously when my wife became pregnant, and then more when we had our first kid. It went critical at her second pregnancy and virtually flatlined into a perpetual, marriage-threatening crisis of a total loss of intimacy (including kissing and hugs) after the birth of our second and final. But looking harder, I noticed a few other things. After our engagement, her own robust libido declined to match mine. On the day of the wedding and thereafter, the quality and enthusiasm of the sex she wanted dramatically dropped. In fact, a number of spicier / more vulnerable things she wanted to do and enjoyed, immediately went off the menu. When we bought a house, it dropped. Wben we moved our lives to a new city, it improved for a bit and then dropped. Basically, every time we increased our tangible and practical investment in our lives together - the sex dropped. It wasn't just with pregnancy. I considered a comment she made on our honeymoon, in which - out of the blue - she suggested she wanted to stay and become a divemaster. Or play guitar as an entertainer. I recalled her, on that same honeymoon, enquire casually with me about working abroad for 6 months at a time and what my views were. I think the reason I couldn't fix any of the sex issues in my marriage is because I never looked at the problem in its full scope and scale. 13 years in, and it seems clear as day to me that she never wanted to be married in the first place. At least, not to me. That's why it went off and really never had a chance. She never joined the marriage. I often find that zooming out into a long term and wide angle examination of the relationship history that people in this situation end up discovering all kinds of things that make sense like this, like I did. Reading this really struck me hard. 'She never wanted to be married in the first place'. It made me think long and hard about the conditioning women (and likely men) go through to get married. Like it's the pinnacle of who they are, and having children what they achieve. This kind of social training starts from a young age- from the first barbie & ken toys they're given. Depending on the culture you come from, it can literally be the definition of who you are as a woman- you can be taught that literally nothing else matters than being married and having kids- you're a failure otherwise. It's there in every reference to the special wedding day. From every nagging mum asking when their daughter will settle down no matter what other achievements she has in life. I also know that women have a biological clock they can't escape. I know too many brilliant women hit their thirties and concede to mediocre men as they wake up to that biological time bomb. I've been in dinner parties with other mums who literally joke about this. Having kids then severely imbalances all of who they are, their identity, and the sacrifices they make (and these are significantly more than men as the physical carrier of the baby)- there is profound resentment there. It makes me question how many women (and men?) sleep walk their way into marriages because it's the right thing to do, they're enacting subconscious norms and that basic assumption or question of their motivations never challenged in the first place. It's no excuse but I think so much of what we do is far more subconscious than we realise.
|
|
|
Post by ironhamster on Mar 14, 2022 2:27:31 GMT -5
I think there is a fair amount of sleepwalking in life. The traditional marriage is a fairytale. How many of us were taken by someone that was not how they presented themselves before the commitment? How many of us have unrealistic views on compatibility? So young, so naive. In time we learn.
|
|
|
Post by mirrororchid on Mar 14, 2022 5:21:49 GMT -5
...you can be taught that literally nothing else matters than being married and having kids- you're a failure otherwise. It's there in every reference to the special wedding day. From every nagging mum asking when their daughter will settle down no matter what other achievements she has in life. I also know that women have a biological clock they can't escape. I know too many brilliant women hit their thirties and concede to mediocre men as they wake up to that biological time bomb. I've been in dinner parties with other mums who literally joke about this. Having kids then severely imbalances all of who they are, their identity, and the sacrifices they make (and these are significantly more than men as the physical carrier of the baby)- there is profound resentment there. It makes me question how many women (and men?) sleep walk their way into marriages because it's the right thing to do, they're enacting subconscious norms and that basic assumption or question of their motivations never challenged in the first place. It's no excuse but I think so much of what we do is far more subconscious than we realise. In those cultures, when someone is born gay, that mantra of "married with kids"=success causes lives to be ground into hamburger. Both spouses, kids, and grandparents. Extraordinary people can repair the mistake admirably, but it is one heckuva challenge.
I'd have to ask these "brilliant" women how many "brilliant" men would be up for looking after the kids they had together. Someone was going to take the hit. There were two potential tragedies here: One was you had kids when a focused, prosperous/accomplished career was a better choice (that's on you). Perhaps you should have pumped at work, sent bottles home to the husband and never see your kid. For some women, maybe good memories or bonding weren't a thing. Resentment could be entirely sensible. If any of the upbringing prvides find reminiscing, perhaps a more balanced view of one's past could improve the outlook. Or You were born brilliant and you'd have preferred to be mediocre too so you could be happier with your choice of spouse. One tragedy longs for a time machine, the other is cursing God. Both considerations are good ways to be unhappy, dwelling on should'ves and what-might-have-beens. Like sexless marriages, the more important focus is, what you can do from here. Unpleasant choices in between where you are now and happiness keep us complaining. Brilliant women should be able to think their way out of it better. Perhaps suggest divorce with husband having full custody? Mistake fixed. What's that? You mean to say those mediocre men made amazing kids with you? Hm. Maybe a reassessment of their life decisions is called for. Or not. Brilliant women may be quite unimpressed with their kids and detachment would be a good move. It sounds cold, but it may be the right answer for some of them. Weighing evidence and coming to such conclusions would certainly not be sleepwalking. That'd be a determined march towards a very contrasting destiny.
|
|
|
Post by lightbeam3076 on Mar 14, 2022 5:53:27 GMT -5
Thanks mirrororchid some powerful thoughts there. It takes a lot to face yourself and sort it- I think we all have it in us- it's just a question of when and how disciplined we are about making change. Could take months, years or a near lifetime.
|
|
|
Post by Apocrypha on Mar 14, 2022 11:19:29 GMT -5
Reading this really struck me hard. 'She never wanted to be married in the first place'. It made me think long and hard about the conditioning women (and likely men) go through to get married. Like it's the pinnacle of who they are, and having children what they achieve. This kind of social training starts from a young age- from the first barbie & ken toys they're given. Depending on the culture you come from, it can literally be the definition of who you are as a woman- you can be taught that literally nothing else matters than being married and having kids- you're a failure otherwise. It's there in every reference to the special wedding day. From every nagging mum asking when their daughter will settle down no matter what other achievements she has in life. I also know that women have a biological clock they can't escape. I know too many brilliant women hit their thirties and concede to mediocre men as they wake up to that biological time bomb. I've been in dinner parties with other mums who literally joke about this. Having kids then severely imbalances all of who they are, their identity, and the sacrifices they make (and these are significantly more than men as the physical carrier of the baby)- there is profound resentment there. It makes me question how many women (and men?) sleep walk their way into marriages because it's the right thing to do, they're enacting subconscious norms and that basic assumption or question of their motivations never challenged in the first place. It's no excuse but I think so much of what we do is far more subconscious than we realise. I'm with you as far as a biological clock (and really, finite time on earth, for men and women), being a time-box that exerts pressure toward a decision. I'll go one farther and say definitively, nature ensures that women have more pressure here, if they plan to give birth. But I'm going to differ with you on the wider women/victim gender narrative I'm reading in the subtext here - at least in my culture, which is from a Western, North American urban area. If I may offer my own example, Mrs Apocrypha's interests were fairly stereotypically geeky/artsy and male. She certainly didn't play barbies and wasn't even allowed to watch The Flintstones, because of the humour derived from its Honeymooner's style anachronistic values. Both her parents worked as well, and she was the only girl in a big family of boys. Neither parents were especially sentimental or prone to nostalgia, and could have been argued to be practical to the point of maladaption. She said right in her wedding vows (intended to be a compliment) that she had never ever planned to marry (so I must have been SOME catch, to make her reconsider when no one else could). Her mother never nagged her about marriage. She was a free spirit Boho, which she now appears to have returned to in her post marriage life, dating men decades younger - though I suspect at her present age that some cruel realities are about to come due with her, and it may become more difficult for her to benefit from the bountiful and willing partners she's so far enjoyed, as an attractive and athletic woman. If anything, she reminded me a lot of the kind of non-committal and passion-project focused person I see in a lot of the Millennials and Gen Z women today. She did want a crack at kids and at making the kind of family she never had growing up. There wasn't much time to decide, in or out - and if it was out for her, she likely didn't have a lot of time to invest in a new partner - and frankly - I don't think it was in her nature. In the singles world, I've observed that online dating has amplified women's tendency toward hypergamy, ranging farther geographically and older in partners, and more frequent changes of partners, and pricing age appropriate relationships and committed relationships right out of the market. Then suddenly they want to settle down when that clock closes on the last chance at kids and family, and it's a mad scramble, with a very "me" and "what I want" dynamic (which is also plied on the older men, who are often grateful to supply it). I've also been to dinner parties where women were complaining about their husbands, but I've also looked at some of these women complainers and wondered what they were bringing to the party besides narcissism and entitlement. It's not wrong to want a family and a family household. There is a cost associated with it though. Gender-partisan advocates would debate me (at their own risk) but I don't see the problem so much these days (and for the last 3-4 decades) as being pressure toward a nuclear family that isn't wanted. I think it's the other half - an not exclusive to marriage either - which is an unwillingness or an inability to bear the cost and to take up responsibility. Much like Mrs Apocrypha's post-marriage ruminations, she thought that if she married a person like me, that the marriage would spring up, intact, like a heat and serve meal. That's not the way marriage works though - it's more like building a log cabin or a homestead farm. You have to invest in it and build it, and before you can do that, you have to CHOOSE it. The wedding ritual these days seems to have turned into a celebration like an awards ceremony for the accomplishment of you being you, rather than embarking on an adventure together. To an extent, traditional ways of arriving at that choice may be a factor in a bad choice. In my own case, I thought about it for 6 months or more before I decided to go all in. Before I chose it, and her, and my whole picture of us and what I was willing to endure together, shifted. But, when I proposed, she had only seconds to decide (and when I think about it, "Why not?" was not a "Yes"). I imagine it's not so different for most couples. But there was a whole year to change her mind almost - so she can accept responsibility for saying Yes when she really meant No, as well.
|
|