article: "The Cure for Sexless Marriages"

This article couldn't MISS capturing the devastation of being in a sexless marriage by a wider margin if it tried.

Let's just start with the title: "The Cure for Sexless Marriages".  Seriously?  Could it overreach any more?

It makes the valid distinction between "temporary doldrums" (of low marital sex) and severe, chronic sexlessness ("sexual desire discrepancy").  OK, yes, that is an important distinction.  But by the end of the article, she lumps them together addresses both with the "cure" of -- what we call on ILIASM -- "bacon scented candles".  You know: "share your fantasies", "schedule sex weekly", "learn each other's turn-ons".  Um.... yeah.

It has a few side-bars in the article, the largest of which is an anecdote from a woman who is content with her low-sex marriage, and believes her husband is, too.  Even if the woman is right that her hubby is OK with this... WTF?!?!  OK, I'm fine if they are happy with their low-sex marriage.  But what place has THAT anecdote in an article about the other kind of sexless marriage: where one partner is devastated by the loneliness?  The kind that can actually tear marriages -- and families -- apart?

It pays lip service to debunking the myth that men always want it more than women... and then trots out the equally inane "but age, you know, that does a job on your libido, for sure".  Say: if age lowers our libido, how does aging lead to "sexual desire discrepancy"; after all, aren't both members of the couple aging at the same rate?

Lastly, returning to the title page, at first I thought the art on the title page was clever: two water knobs both labeled "cold".  But -- upon further reflection -- wouldn't the traditional two knobs of "hot" and "cold" actually be more apt?  Or -- even better -- "normal" and "cold"? 

As with seemingly everyone else who writes about sexless marriages, she makes the mistake of thinking it's a problem you both want to solve.

She had this article written before she even came here. She did not listen.

Shame on her.

Just occurs to me, that maybe she wrote a great article, a warts and all job, with the options all on the table - and maybe her editor scrubbed heaps of it out.
Anyway, what ended up being published was trite superficial crap.
"Why" it ended up as trite superficial crap doesn't particularly matter.
It just did.

Another negative to this is the magazine tittle. " Prevention". How many people read this, see it as health science, and take it as truth? Compared to reading Cosmopolitan?

Yeah, the layout and graphics are good. It's packaged attractively.

And it may have some advice that's useful for couples who are having minor temporary issues. A long-term lack of sex? Useless.

While I did appreciate the article and think it was well-written and thorough in terms of ruling out other causes of sexlessness, @phinheasgage is right on the money with the above.

I could show this article to my H and it would mean nothing to him.  If I were lucky (pun intended), he might, major emphasis on might, give it a go for a week (tops) and then drop it like a hot potato, because frankly he has no desire (yes, pun intended - again) to solve this 'problem.'  

In fact, I would venture to say, it's not even a problem for him.  Because ya know fellas, apparently that hand of his beats me every day in the 'sooooooo effing sexy' department.

It's not just that we CAN'T - we can't ANYMORE - we have laid it out, and opened ourselves up - and got rejected.
So how many times can we do that?
How many times can we try before we KNOW it's not happening? How long before we just pull away and close ourselves off?

And what happens when and if it gets reawakened?

Again - the article assume both sides what to fix it.