Constant Refusal equal to cheating

[Herzen]

I would add that what's additionally frustrating is that the dynamic of the bedroom was unilaterally changed by the low-libido spouse after a few years of marriage.

 

While dating we never had to uncover intricate psycholigical pathways to getting our SO in the mood. She couldn't wait to get us in the sack. It didn't matter what the room looked like, what time it was, what we were wearing, the temperature outside, and the value of the S&P 500. I'm convinced that if a wife were able to keep this up even twice a week, we'd see the rate of cheating and divorce plummet dramatically.

 

All of the sudden, while many husbands find themselves feeling the same way sexually towards their wives as they did back in the day, but now they're required to take duty sex whenever they do get it all all.

 

Sure it's nice to buy flowers, have a nice night out, clean the house, etc. every once in a while .. but now it's a necessary prerequisite just to buy the lottery ticket that may, maybe get you some intimacy with your own wife. That just screams "I don't find you desirable anymore".

 

That is why men cheat IMO. They meet a woman who wants them. They're the ones who want to have sex with them anytime, anyplace, and they don't need to buy them a cruise to Caribbean first.

 

This is especially true for guys hitting their 40's and 50's. Because while crappy sex in our 30's was disheartening, we maybe felt we had time to turn things around. In our 40's I think many men now can feel the time running out and they face the very real prospect of no longer ever experencing a satisfying, blissful sexual and emotional encounter with a willing female. The idea that the wife will ever be that seems ludicrous anymore.

 

What the "just divorce" crowd doesn't get is that the wife may not want the divorce in spite of the sexual desert that exists in the relationship. Add the responsibility of children and divorce just doesn't seem like neither the best nor the most "honorable" solution.

 

Well said, dog.

The realism of experience.

[JamesM]

Scrivdog, EXTREMELY well said! Thank you for saying what I have not been able to say so well.

[Sevenmack]

What the "just divorce" crowd doesn't get is that the wife may not want the divorce in spite of the sexual desert that exists in the relationship. Add the responsibility of children and divorce just doesn't seem like neither the best nor the most "honorable" solution.

 

 

She certainly doesn't want the divorce. After all, she's getting everything she wants out of the relationship. This would also be true if the tables were turned. And this is true in all such situations, including abusive situations where one spouse gets the benefits of being a nasty SOB while the other takes the abuse.

 

And that's my point: Such a relationship is no longer about two people complimenting one another's strengths and talents, but an unequal yoke in which one gets the goodies and the other gets the shaft. That's why the spouse who is frustrated with the lack of sex and affection is suffering.

 

As much as I agree that a divorce would be difficult, especially with the involvement of children, it's less difficult in the long run than putting up with a circumstance in which one is getting the best part of the deal while the other is getting the proverbial F-over. Everyone deserves affection and, yes, a good screw. It shouldn't be an obligation to give it or an necessity to beg for it.

 

That is why men cheat IMO. They meet a woman who wants them. They're the ones who want to have sex with them anytime, anyplace, and they don't need to buy them a cruise to Caribbean first.

 

This is especially true for guys hitting their 40's and 50's. Because while crappy sex in our 30's was disheartening, we maybe felt we had time to turn things around. In our 40's I think many men now can feel the time running out and they face the very real prospect of no longer ever experencing a satisfying, blissful sexual and emotional encounter with a willing female. The idea that the wife will ever be that seems ludicrous anymore.

 

And it's understandable. But cheating doesn't work in the long run, mostly because at some point, the person who is being denied affection and is finally getting it from elsewhere will eventually realize that this shouldn't be the state of affairs. The person you love should also be the one that provides the affection and sexual satisfaction you crave. Unless the spouse denying the affection finally wises up and fixes the problem, divorce is going to happen.

 

Actually, the divorce has happened. You have two people living completely separate lives, with only children and finances to keep them together. And when the children leave the house and live their own lives, the finances won't do much to keep the relationship intact. As I've seen with too many of my pals, whose parents have split up during the empty nest period, money can't buy you love or keep a marriage together.

[Scrivdog]

..

Actually, the divorce has happened. You have two people living completely separate lives, with only children and finances to keep them together. And when the children leave the house and live their own lives, the finances won't do much to keep the relationship intact. As I've seen with too many of my pals, whose parents have split up during the empty nest period, money can't buy you love or keep a marriage together.

 

That's exactly correct, which is why I worry for guys like Moose, James, etc. They're living a chaste life while the spouse they so honorably stuck with all these years may still leave them. I've seen that as well.

[CynicalP]

Perhaps the solution for the sexually disaffected is not to marry in the first place. This Thread with its posts about the daily misery of sexless marriages, betrayed vows and huge frustrations constitutes one compelling argument against marriage.

 

Implicit in the sexually deprived husbands' complaints is that their wives became complacent, sexually uninterested and aloof after the knot is tied. Well, perhaps many shouldn't bother tying the "knot" in the first place--especially when the "knot" causes so much misery and unhappiness to so many.

 

This Thread is the best possible argument for serial monogamy or polygamy in lieu of marriage, which is way oversold as the only mature and proper way to structure an erotic relationship. (Wedding-Industrial Complex, anyone?).

 

Well, guess what? It's not.

 

Marriage is the most overrated of institutions, which the misery in this Thread demonstrates.

 

 

Your Absolutely right Herzen, we must continue to inform the younger generation of men that marriage is not in their best interests. I do every chance I get.

[luvstarved]

OK guys I have decided to weigh in here. I have been in a gender-reversed version of the sexless marriage - for 7 years my H had avoided having sex with me. Meanwhile, our other interactions slowly rotted to the point of being mostly hostile.

 

My opinion is that if a marriage is not about two people who are able to love, cherish and respect each other, and to support each other in the quest for happiness, then you are wasting your time and energy. To me, there is nothing noble and admirable about forsaking your needs for the sake of children, appearances, or an otherwise amicable scenario.

 

My marriage is finally on the mend because I frigging well insisted on it and continued to insist on it until some progress started to occur. Yes I let it go for a long time, and tried things on my own, and hoped and prayed and felt sorry for myself, and tried this that the other and then some to turn things around before finally coming to the conclusion that I would rather have no marriage at all than the one I was having.

 

It sounds like in the marriages I am reading about where the wife is disinterested in sex, it has been talked about many times and just hangs there as the big white elephant in the room. This leaves frustration on one side and pressure on the other. Reasonable needs on one side yet the right to say no on the other.

 

It almost seems like these situations are an impasse of "if you loved me, you would do this for me" vs "if you loved me, you would not ask me to do this". It shouldn't be. That's just a head game.

 

I told my H that our marriage was s**t and that we were either going to cut the s**t or cut the cord. I told him I loved him and wanted to be with him but that we were not even being nice to each other and that is not how a marriage should be. I wanted a best friend and lover and he was not being either and unless we could achieve that, we were doomed.

 

At first I think he was just motivated to avoid divorce for practical reasons. Whatever!! What happened is that we found a counselor who was REALLY GOOD for us and was able to cut through the crap, tell us what we were each doing wrong, and show us how to do things right. The simple approach of listening to and validating each other's feelings, negotiating with compassion, and respecting boundaries has taken us beyond "getting along" and moving swiftly into the realm of "best friends and lovers". It's awesome. Of course, we still have some issues to work on, but now we're on the SAME TEAM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

I think it is wrong to settle for less of a marriage than you want. Although it is scary, it is better to move on than stay in a marriage that can never BE what you want. On the other hand, I think that if you are able to approach it in the right way, with love and mutual respect and steely determination, the marriage you want could be hidden under the covers of the marriage that you have.

 

The simple thing that our counselor said that resonated the strongest with me was (paraphrased) "Remember who you are talking to in your interactions. This is supposed to be the person you love and cherish above all others. Act accordingly".

 

If you could get that going from both sides, I think you'd be on your way to SOME kind of solution.

[OpenBook]

My marriage is finally on the mend because I frigging well insisted on it and continued to insist on it until some progress started to occur... I told my H that our marriage was s**t and that we were either going to cut the s**t or cut the cord.

 

Excellent point, luvstarved! In fact, ALL the posts in this thread are top-notch, in my book. These guys have really opened my eyes. Their comments help me understand why (as a singleton) I get more hit-on by MM than I do by single guys. They want what they're missing (sex), not what they already have (love, deep bond). In an amazing way, it helps me to be more compassionate when turning these MM's away. I understand now. They're not creeps - they're just starving.

 

I would really like to see all the W's and BS's who rip into OW's on The Other Man/Woman forum, weigh-in here.

 

But since they're not, I'll have to guess...

 

It sounds like in the marriages I am reading about where the wife is disinterested in sex, it has been talked about many times and just hangs there as the big white elephant in the room...

 

Maybe that's what the W's are counting on - they know that their H's are unlikely to leave the M, so they don't feel motivated to do anything about their H's unhappiness in the bedroom.

 

The whole thing just makes me so sad. Their H's love them so much - why do they discount (or completely ignore) what their H's want and need from them so badly? It's like taking a precious jewel and flinging it in the trash.

[luvstarved]

I agree, OpenBook. I was sad to say in an "open marriage" early in my stupid youth and it was a bit pathetic how easy it was to seduce MMs. That is probably at least part of why I still struggle with some jealousy and insecurity!!

 

And in my post I did not mean to make it sound as though I was just telling my H to "grow up and show up", I knew that I was also contributing to the situation, so the efforts to correct have been mutual.

 

It is easy to fall into complacency and selfishness and resentment, but is that what you want to keep you warm and cozy at night?

 

Right now, I almost feel like I am dating my H, because I am making an extra effort to be appropriately kind and respectful, and to keep myself looking good. For several of those sexless years, I had let myself go and dressed in a very unflattering way, etc.

 

I think some people will take a bit too seriously the vows that say "for better or worse", etc and take it as an excuse to not put forth any real effort once they are married. "You're supposed to love me no matter what and if you don't then you are a shallow prick/bitch."

 

I have been married twice and engaged four times. It has never worked that way. Which is why I was not just married and engaged ONCE. It's taken me this long to get it, too. Too often it is not that you are with the wrong person - it's just that you're no longer treating and regarding each other the way that you should. Many times it just feels like too much work to deal with the baggage and let go of resentments and get back to a place where you both understand and care about the other and are willing to GIVE and not just take...

 

No more of that for me! I want to stay right here, and make THIS one work.

 

There are a lot of guys out there that ARE just selfish snatch hounds and cheat just for the thrill, etc. But there ARE also a lot of women out there who seem to regard their husband's desires as "base needs" and act like any sort of sexual concessions are virtual rape. It is not prostituting yourself to give your man the love that he needs, even if it means a "sacrifice". It's called GIVING, and is best done lovingly and freely.

 

Sigh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[OpenBook]

Wait a minute, treat her like a sexual object or don’t treat her like a sexual object??? Will she treat me like the sexual object that she loves, that she obsesses over and she can’t get enough of? Why her and not me, me, me??? (code word: banter)

 

I was trying to present an alternative viewpoint to the MM's posting on this thread, on the off-chance that it might help them increase their W's libido - which is what they want, more than anything else.

 

Yes, when you desire sex from your mate, she IS a sexual object. When you combine that with your ADORATION, only a brain-dead woman wouldn't respond to that and GIVE YOU WHAT YOU WANT - her affection, her intimacy, her love.

 

My theory was based on "If you want a friend, BE a friend." If you want a lover, BE a lover.

 

But apparently I'm wrong. These MM's insist that they've already tried this approach, many times, and it just hasn't worked.

[Scrivdog]

..These guys have really opened my eyes. Their comments help me understand why (as a singleton) I get more hit-on by MM than I do by single guys. They want what they're missing (sex), not what they already have (love, deep bond)...

 

Great post! But I think this part needs a correction. The guys who don't have sex with their wives aren't feeling the deep love and bond either.

 

The OW will give the guy both.

[luvstarved]

 

My theory was based on "If you want a friend, BE a friend." If you want a lover, BE a lover.

 

But apparently I'm wrong. These MM's insist that they've already tried this approach, many times, and it just hasn't worked.

 

I think the problem with the "role model" approach is that there is this perception of it all being an act, a means to an end and then it feels like games and pressure to respond in kind...just another transparent attempt to satisfy the "ulterior motive".

 

I tried all of that with my H too. Nuthin'!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Really, it wasn't until we honestly expressed ourselves and understood each other that we realized that...hey, neither one of us is actually a selfish unreasonable a**hole...just people with needs and frustrations and misunderstandings. And the honest expression was not forthcoming until the future of the marriage hung in the balance...so maybe that's what it takes in others' cases...but you do have to mean it. I did mean it. I wasn't hanging on any more. For all I know we are in some second honeymoon and things will regress. I am ready to leave if so.

 

Like it or not, I think to stay in a good marriage you have to stay on your damn toes and work on it. That isn't to say you don't have trust and security. You trust and are secure because you know that you are both doing what you need to make each other happy and that you will be able to work together to keep it that way.

 

I don't think you can or should ever trust 100% or feel 100% secure. But I think it is a lot easier when honesty, respect and love are actively in play...