Constant Refusal equal to cheating

[JamesM]

First, Mr Lucky, answering you is off-topic. That is why I didn't jump into the debate with those...including you...who wish to ask why.

 

Second, to answer your question...okay, okay:D...

 

No sex at this point is not a deal breaker because it is very hard to leave a family for that alone. And I do have sex. I started by saying almost sexless. But as you know I have been there. Now at least we have it occasionally. And as many will say, everything else is worth staying for...even with less sex than I desire.

 

And many individuals do reconcile a marriage where an affair occurred. I have corresponded with a number of women who have done so. So, as in the case of an affair, no sex with hope for reconciliation/more sex is grounds for continuation.

 

What is my deal breaker? To have endured a sexless marriage only to find out that she has/had an affair while denying me sex. No, I do not think that has/is the case...but if.

 

Back to the topic.

 

A vow is a vow. Breaking it can be done by commission of a "sin" or omission of a requirement.

[Mr. Lucky]

First, Mr Lucky, answering you is off-topic. That is why I didn't jump into the debate with those...including you...who wish to ask why.

While I appreciate your answer, I don't agree that the question is OT. The OP asked is "Constant Refusal equal to cheating". If one's answer is "yes", I think "what would be the next step?" is a fair and obvious question.

 

I do appreciate your distinction between "sexless" and "almost sexless". I think I read somewhere that the clinical definition of a sexless marriage was less than 10 times per year. As always, it's a matter of individual interpretation. Also, as I told Moose, I admire your dedication and committment to your family. I'm not sure I could be as strong under the same circumstances .

 

Mr. Lucky

[JamesM]

While I appreciate your answer, I don't agree that the question is OT. The OP asked is "Constant Refusal equal to cheating". If one's answer is "yes", I think "what would be the next step?" is a fair and obvious question.

 

I do appreciate your distinction between "sexless" and "almost sexless". I think I read somewhere that the clinical definition of a sexless marriage was less than 10 times per year. As always, it's a matter of individual interpretation. Also, as I told Moose, I admire your dedication and committment to your family. I'm not sure I could be as strong under the same circumstances .

 

Mr. Lucky

 

Point conceded. It may not be off topic, but my concern is that this thread become focused on one person's situation.

 

As for me being in a sexless marriage, based on your definition I am not. I can say that We have sex at least approximately eighteen to twenty times a year. Last year was much more. This year should be near that mark.

 

I am willing to guess that a sexless marriage can better be defined as a marriage where one partner feels that there is not enough sex. For some couples ten times is enough. For others, one hundred times is not enough.

 

If you were under the same circumstances, you may be surprised what you would want to endure for the sake of family and love.

[Trialbyfire]

While I do think that people who deprive their spouses from sex for years DO deserve to be cheated on (it's not cheating if somebody is faithful to their extra-mariatl lover ), I don't think that the deprived party deserves to become a cheater and not be able to freely enjoy love and sex.

 

Non-sexual people who have low libidos should connect and practice their sexless lifestyles. Or they could make love once a month and be content with that. Those who are horny and passionate should be with similar partners. Unfortunately, many people discover that their partners are not what they thought they were, only after they get married or much later. When all the excuses wear out (kids, stress, time, work, problems, medical issues), one partner finds him/herself trapped in a loveless marriage. To me no sex equals no love.

RP, that is an appalling attitude.

 

It is unbelievably self-entitled and risky behaviour, where you expose your spouse to potential STDs without their knowledge, nevermind the emotional aspect of the lying, subterfuge and victimization of the unknowing spouse. I highly doubt that a MP would call it fun and games, when the crap hits the fan.

 

As for people with low libidos, I have no experience with that. I can only say that once a person marries another, you would think this would have been a no-brainer at the get-go...

[JamesM]

RP, that is an appalling attitude.

 

As for people with low libidos, I have no experience with that. I can only say that once a person marries another, you would think this would have been a no-brainer at the get-go...

 

I have to actually agree with some of what RP is saying. It IS frustrating to be in a position where you can only have sex with a partner who does not want...or shall we say...no longer wants sex.

 

You would think it is a no brainer, but as many men will testify...many of us men married a passionate woman. And after we said "I do," she no longer saw sex as necessary. Rather it was an extra perk that may be offered at her whim and fancy. It is a known fact that the partner with the lowest sex drive controls the amount of sex in a marriage. Much as I love my wife (and yes, I do), I can see why lying and sneakiness is one way of handling such a situation. And now don't tell me..."then leave," because as the sexless partner knows and many of us who have felt that frustration, once a family is built...ie children, house, and assets...this is no longer simple at all. So we do one of three things..fix it (or try), live with it (learn to ignore sex or get it elsewhere), or yes, some leave the marriage.

 

If we were all honest before the marriage began, then it would have been a no brainer, but when so many partners hide such things like low libidos, knowing full well that low libidos are rarely desirable, then we have many marriages where one or both partners are unhappy.

[Trialbyfire]

I have to actually agree with some of what RP is saying. It IS frustrating to be in a position where you can only have sex with a partner who does not want...or shall we say...no longer wants sex.

 

You would think it is a no brainer, but as many men will testify...many of us men married a passionate woman. And after we said "I do," she no longer saw sex as necessary. Rather it was an extra perk that may be offered at her whim and fancy. It is a known fact that the partner with the lowest sex drive controls the amount of sex in a marriage. Much as I love my wife (and yes, I do), I can see why lying and sneakiness is one way of handling such a situation. And now don't tell me..."then leave," because as the sexless partner knows and many of us who have felt that frustration, once a family is built...ie children, house, and assets...this is no longer simple at all. So we do one of three things..fix it (or try), live with it (learn to ignore sex or get it elsewhere), or yes, some leave the marriage.

 

If we were all honest before the marriage began, then it would have been a no brainer, but when so many partners hide such things like low libidos, knowing full well that low libidos are rarely desirable, then we have many marriages where one or both partners are unhappy.

If she was passionate before, I doubt this is a physical issue with low libido. It sounds more like some form of emotional issue. I suspect there's fault on both sides, in order for a relationship to deteriorate to the point where physicality has disappeared.

[Kislette]

It is unbelievably self-entitled and risky behaviour, where you expose your spouse to potential STDs without their knowledge, nevermind the emotional aspect of the lying, subterfuge and victimization of the unknowing spouse.

 

How can someone be exposing their partner to potential STD's if their partner isn't having sex with them? And what about the emotional aspect of being denied satisfaction of one of if not THE strongest drive humans have? Dan Savage says in his Savage Love column that refusing to have sex with your spouse or long term partner and then refusing to allow them to have sex with someone is emotional abuse, and I completely agree. What I don't agree with is people defining "sexless marriage" as one that includes sex on a monthly basis then criticizing all people in a sexless marriage for thinking it's ok to cheat. Cheating is an extreme solution and should only be used in extreme cases. I have a friend whose wife has refused to have sex with him for several YEARS. Being restricted to just having sex once a month is not the same as this at all. My friend has resorted to having cybersex in order to achieve the intimacy he craves so much but is being denied by a woman who is supposed to care about his well being. I don't think what he's doing is wrong at all - in fact, I think he would be justified in having sex with another person in real life, even though he disagrees with me.

 

If the problem is really that the husband and wife can't agree on the frequency they should have sex rather than whether or not it should happen at all, they should seek counseling before the "neglected" partner resorts to seeking sexual satisfaction outside the relationship. Unless, of course, the partner with the lower libido says it's ok to have an outside sexual partner.

 

I am female and I am married but I think it's disgusting the way so many people (male as well as female) have such little regard for men's sexual needs. Having them doesn't make the men pigs or make them wrong, it makes them HUMAN. I have almost no libido but I have sex with my husband at least a few times a month because I care about him.

[Trialbyfire]

How can someone be exposing their partner to potential STD's if their partner isn't having sex with them? And what about the emotional aspect of being denied satisfaction of one of if not THE strongest drive humans have? Dan Savage says in his Savage Love column that refusing to have sex with your spouse or long term partner and then refusing to allow them to have sex with someone is emotional abuse, and I completely agree. What I don't agree with is people defining "sexless marriage" as one that includes sex on a monthly basis then criticizing all people in a sexless marriage for thinking it's ok to cheat. Cheating is an extreme solution and should only be used in extreme cases. I have a friend whose wife has refused to have sex with him for several YEARS. Being restricted to just having sex once a month is not the same as this at all. My friend has resorted to having cybersex in order to achieve the intimacy he craves so much but is being denied by a woman who is supposed to care about his well being. I don't think what he's doing is wrong at all - in fact, I think he would be justified in having sex with another person in real life, even though he disagrees with me.

 

If the problem is really that the husband and wife can't agree on the frequency they should have sex rather than whether or not it should happen at all, they should seek counseling before the "neglected" partner resorts to seeking sexual satisfaction outside the relationship. Unless, of course, the partner with the lower libido says it's ok to have an outside sexual partner.

 

I am female and I am married but I think it's disgusting the way so many people (male as well as female) have such little regard for men's sexual needs. Having them doesn't make the men pigs or make them wrong, it makes them HUMAN. I have almost no libido but I have sex with my husband at least a few times a month because I care about him.

All it takes is a once a month engagement with the wife, in order to expose her to high-risk behaviours. She didn't ask to sleep with everyone the cheater chose to.

 

Cheating is incredibly selfish and stands alone as the responsibility of the cheating spouse.

 

If sexual needs are being consistently not being met by one spouse and there's refusal to amend it, then the spouse who has the need has the right to sue for divorce.

 

It's that simple.

[Kislette]

All it takes is a once a month engagement with the wife, in order to expose her to high-risk behaviours. She didn't ask to sleep with everyone the cheater chose to.

 

Cheating is incredibly selfish and stands alone as the responsibility of the cheating spouse.

 

If sexual needs are being consistently not being met by one spouse and there's refusal to amend it, then the spouse who has the need has the right to sue for divorce.

 

It's that simple.

 

No, it isn't that simple. Sex is just ONE of the reasons for a couple to be together. If you truly love someone it's not that easy to just up and leave when the relationship doesn't work out exactly like you wanted. And if the cheater uses adequate protection, how is that exposure to possible STD's any more inconsiderate than the first time two people who aren't virgins have sex with each other? Also, you're ignoring the fact that I said I don't feel like getting sex just once a month is an extreme enough situation to justify cheating. I do agree that if a spouse refuses to have sex at all or only agrees a few (by that I mean about 3-4) times a year that it's grounds for divorce. However, I don't agree that it's the ONLY option. Why is divorce so much better than cheating? It seems to me that people are much more hurt by being left than by being cheated on.

[Trialbyfire]

No, it isn't that simple. Sex is just ONE of the reasons for a couple to be together. If you truly love someone it's not that easy to just up and leave when the relationship doesn't work out exactly like you wanted. And if the cheater uses adequate protection, how is that exposure to possible STD's any more inconsiderate than the first time two people who aren't virgins have sex with each other? Also, you're ignoring the fact that I said I don't feel like getting sex just once a month is an extreme enough situation to justify cheating. I do agree that if a spouse refuses to have sex at all or only agrees a few (by that I mean about 3-4) times a year that it's grounds for divorce. However, I don't agree that it's the ONLY option. Why is divorce so much better than cheating? It seems to me that people are much more hurt by being left than by being cheated on.

If you keep piling more wrongs onto a marriage, it's doomed to implode. By your own logic, she has the right to cheat on him because he's not meeting her emotional needs enough to power her up to want to have sex with him.

 

This has got to be the most immature attitude ever. You hurt me so I will hide, lie and cheat to get what I need. Oh yeah, well I'll go out and get me what I need and hide, lie and cheat to get what I want.

 

Best to address the real issues upfront. If they are unresolveable, you have zero basis for a marriage. Once again, it's that simple.

[Herzen]

If she was passionate before, I doubt this is a physical issue with low libido. It sounds more like some form of emotional issue. I suspect there's fault on both sides, in order for a relationship to deteriorate to the point where physicality has disappeared.

 

A curious double standard:when the BS refuses to have sex fault lies with both spouses and the BS's sexual boycott therefore is excused.

 

On the other hand, when the WS cheats fault lies with the WS alone, and is never shared with the BS.

 

As I said before, I'll say again: chronic sexual withdrawal and cheating are morally equivalent.

[JamesM]

If she was passionate before, I doubt this is a physical issue with low libido. It sounds more like some form of emotional issue. I suspect there's fault on both sides, in order for a relationship to deteriorate to the point where physicality has disappeared.

 

Having read many other situations and also knowing mine, it is not usually just a physical problem. Yes, it is usually an emotional one. But when one partner refuses to acknowledge or attempt to fix the problem, then the one who "needs" sex is left with nothing except...well, nothing.

 

Of course, there may be fault on both sides. Yet it is never so easy. As Moose states, he wants to know what the problem is. And I have stated the same thing. My wife will tell you that she doesn't know why she has no interest in sex. She will even tell you (as she did me) that she doesn't even think of sex in her dreams anymore as she once did. She feels that she is being a good wife by doing those things I mentioned such as cooking, cleaning, etc. She does those things out of love. Since she has no "need" for sex, this is not a way she feels she expresses love. And it has not always been that way. I have written my long story regarding possible reasons. Moose has as well. I certainly have never said I was not at fault. What I would like to know is what can I do to fix things so that she is once again passionate for sex. I want to know WHY I am at fault.

 

It is easy to say that fault is on both sides. It is easy to say fix the problem on your side. But when one is not told what the problem is or when one is told that "it is not you, it is me" when asked if I can change anything (yes, she tells me that), and when she doesn't even attempt to fix/resolve/discover why it is her, then we have a form of cheating. This is no different than if I were to say that I am sexually addicted to another woman and I don't know why...nor do I attempt to stay away from the other woman. And in my case, my wife will say that it is frustrating for her that she has no interest, so I guess I should find another woman and say that it is frustrating for me as to why I cannot stay away from having sex with her.

 

 

Some of this is tongue in cheek with a dip of sarcasm, but hopefully, the point being made is understood.

[Trialbyfire]

A curious double standard:when the BS refuses to have sex fault lies with both spouses and the BS's sexual boycott therefore is excused.

 

On the other hand, when the WS cheats fault lies with the WS alone, and is never shared with the BS.

 

As I said before, I'll say again: chronic sexual withdrawal and cheating are morally equivalent.

Strange that you would pick this little section out and twist it out of all the comments I've made. If the wife consistently refuses to have sex and is unwilling to resolve the situation, the husband has full rights to divorce her. That is what he has a right to control and is her burden to bear. If the husband runs out and cheats, he is responsible for his own actions and she has control and has the rights to divorce. That is his burden to bear.

 

Keep on piling the wrongs onto each other and you will have a divorce from hell.

[Trialbyfire]

Having read many other situations and also knowing mine, it is not usually just a physical problem. Yes, it is usually an emotional one. But when one partner refuses to acknowledge or attempt to fix the problem, then the one who "needs" sex is left with nothing except...well, nothing.

 

Of course, there may be fault on both sides. Yet it is never so easy. As Moose states, he wants to know what the problem is. And I have stated the same thing. My wife will tell you that she doesn't know why she has no interest in sex. She will even tell you (as she did me) that she doesn't even think of sex in her dreams anymore as she once did. She feels that she is being a good wife by doing those things I mentioned such as cooking, cleaning, etc. She does those things out of love. Since she has no "need" for sex, this is not a way she feels she expresses love. And it has not always been that way. I have written my long story regarding possible reasons. Moose has as well. I certainly have never said I was not at fault. What I would like to know is what can I do to fix things so that she is once again passionate for sex. I want to know WHY I am at fault.

 

It is easy to say that fault is on both sides. It is easy to say fix the problem on your side. But when one is not told what the problem is or when one is told that "it is not you, it is me" when asked if I can change anything (yes, she tells me that), and when she doesn't even attempt to fix/resolve/discover why it is her, then we have a form of cheating. This is no different than if I were to say that I am sexually addicted to another woman and I don't know why...nor do I attempt to stay away from the other woman. And in my case, my wife will say that it is frustrating for her that she has no interest, so I guess I should find another woman and say that it is frustrating for me as to why I cannot stay away from having sex with her.

 

 

Some of this is tongue in cheek with a dip of sarcasm, but hopefully, the point being made is understood.

If one party gets to the point where they refuse to resolve the issue, divorce her. She has to actively participate in the marriage. Having said that, he also has to actively participate in the marriage.

 

If you think about the standard life cycle of an unhealthy relationship, it starts with pursuit and attention by the man. The woman is made to feel special so she lavishes this type of attention back onto the man. Positive synergies are created so they have a wonderful emotional and physical relationship.

 

After they get married, both parties get busy with daily responsibilities of which include other priorities such as mortgage, kids, etc. At this point in time, they both stop prioritizing each other and start to drift, particularly in a traditional marriage. The wife's focus becomes cooking, cleaning and taking care of husband/kids and home. The husband's focus becomes supporting the family and taking care of the home. They are no longer each other's priority. The husband stops his pursuit attention and the wife stops lavishing him, no positive synergies are created.

 

Boom..no emotional connection, no physicality.

[JamesM]

If one party gets to the point where they refuse to resolve the issue, divorce her. She has to actively participate in the marriage. Having said that, he also has to actively participate in the marriage.

 

If you think about the standard life cycle of an unhealthy relationship, it starts with pursuit and attention by the man. The woman is made to feel special so she lavishes this type of attention back onto the man. Positive synergies are created so they have a wonderful emotional and physical relationship.

 

After they get married, both parties get busy with daily responsibilities of which include other priorities such as mortgage, kids, etc. At this point in time, they both stop prioritizing each other and start to drift, particularly in a traditional marriage. The wife's focus becomes cooking, cleaning and taking care of husband/kids and home. The husband's focus becomes supporting the family and taking care of the home. They are no longer each other's priority. The husband stops his pursuit attention and the wife stops lavishing him, no positive synergies are created.

 

Boom..no emotional connection, no physicality.

 

Again, I cannot speak for anyone else. For me though, attention lavished does not equal sexual attention lavished back. She desires time together...conversation and connection. This is her big word...she needs connection. I have seen a direct correlation though...we can spend an evening or a day together. She enjoys herself. She relaxes and has fun. She has even agreed that "tonight" we will have fun..or a roll in the hay as she calls it. But when night comes around, she no longer has the interest. And it has nothing to do with children. She just doesn't have the libido. Is my focus elsewhere? If that were the reason alone, I know that she would tell me. But it isn't always about connection and focus.

 

You use the word emotional connection. I agree that if this was what I needed, I would be going full speed. She will tell you that we have coffee together often. My job allows me to be home all summer. Even though she works, we can spend a lot of time together. Yes, with kids or without. So, we can connect more than most couples, but there is no correlation to the amount of sex. Many women would be jealous of the amount of time she gets with her husband. I have even heard a couple say that they wish their husbands would spend as much time with them as I do. (And no, I am far from perfect...that I am aware).

 

Divorce her. I am not sure where you are coming from, but as Kislett stated above, marriage is not all about sex. I can say for myself that sex with her is much more than sex. Sex with someone else is just that...sex. Why? We have connection and memories together. We have a love between us. For me, sex is a way to express that love. Hugging her and loving her is much better than with just anyone. This I cannot even get through to her.

 

It is not just about sex. It is about feeling that I am her man, and I can turn her on. Without that "connection," we are just roommates who happen to have children together.

 

So, when we say that not "giving" sex to someone is cheating, we mean exactly that...cheating. Sex with someone else is an obvious infidelity through commission of adultery, but withholding sex is an infidelity through the omission of the "requirements" of the marital contract.

 

BTW, when a man cheats, it is not necessarily only he who is at fault. If the woman withholds sex and the man goes elsewhere, she, too, bears some of the blame. And if a woman withholds sex for whatever reason, then yes, somehow, the man is also at fault.

[Trialbyfire]

BTW, when a man cheats, it is not necessarily only he who is at fault. If the woman withholds sex and the man goes elsewhere, she, too, bears some of the blame. And if a woman withholds sex for whatever reason, then yes, somehow, the man is also at fault.

I completely disagree with this James. He bears full burden for cheating.

 

One other possibility is to discuss an open marriage with her and see if her libido picks up...

[JamesM]

I completely disagree with this James. He bears full burden for cheating.

 

One other possibility is to discuss an open marriage with her and see if her libido picks up...

 

So we are back to that again. If a woman withholds sex, then somehow the man must have not given her enough love and attention. But if the man cheats because the woman withholds sex, then he alone is at fault.

 

You are right...we completely disagree on this one. I do not condone cheating as a way to solve the problem or I would have done it long ago. But I also understand how a man that is put into a position of frustration and complete lack of options finds himself "helpless" when a woman finds him attractive and turns on her charms. It is the responsibility of both partners to make the other one feel that cheating is not an attractive option.

 

BTW, talking of open marriage to a person with low libido is like discussing dessert with a person who just ate a gallon of ice cream. Where there is no appetite, there is no desire.

[Trialbyfire]

So we are back to that again. If a woman withholds sex, then somehow the man must have not given her enough love and attention. But if the man cheats because the woman withholds sex, then he alone is at fault.

 

You are right...we completely disagree on this one. I do not condone cheating as a way to solve the problem or I would have done it long ago. But I also understand how a man that is put into a position of frustration and complete lack of options finds himself "helpless" when a woman finds him attractive and turns on her charms. It is the responsibility of both partners to make the other one feel that cheating is not an attractive option.

 

BTW, talking of open marriage to a person with low libido is like discussing dessert with a person who just ate a gallon of ice cream. Where there is no appetite, there is no desire.

Why not ask her? This way, you can hang onto her because of all the "other things" that are priorities within your marriage and then get some on the side with full permission.

 

My personal opinion is that this style of marriage would never be for me but then I would walk before cheating.

[RecordProducer]

I wish I had more time to read all the posts and comment, but I don't so I will just quote one.

RP, that is an appalling attitude.

It is unbelievably self-entitled and risky behaviour, where you expose your spouse to potential STDs without their knowledge,

There is no point or reason to have sex with the spouse who doesn't want it anyway. The moment one decides that the marriage is 96.5% sexless so they will find someone else, the marriage should become 100% sexless. No more sex. It prevents STD's and the feeling of entitlement and it transforms the partners into room mates. Besides, I personally find it totally gross to have sex with two people in a zig-zag manner. It should be either one or the other.

 

Regarding lying, it somewhere on the same level of marital crime as neglect. Just like we hear all the time "If you wanted to cheat, you should have divorced first," the cheater could say "If you wanted to neglect me for years, you should have divorced me."

 

Neglect in its nature is even more selfish and childish than cheating. It's the kids' attitude "I am not going to eat this, but I won't let YOU eat it either!"

 

After all, when the deprived party stops the sex completely (without letting it happen once a month, whenever the other spouse feels like), the disinterested one may - just may - become more interested and do something about it.

[Trialbyfire]

I wish I had more time to read all the posts and comment, but I don't so I will just quote one. :)There is no point or reason to have sex with the spouse who doesn't want it anyway. The moment one decides that the marriage is 96.5% sexless so they will find someone else, the marriage should become 100% sexless. No more sex. It prevents STD's and the feeling of entitlement and it transforms the partners into room mates. Besides, I personally find it totally gross to have sex with two people in a zig-zag manner. It should be either one or the other.

 

Regarding lying, it somewhere on the same level of marital crime as neglect. Just like we hear all the time "If you wanted to cheat, you should have divorced first," the cheater could say "If you wanted to neglect me for years, you should have divorced me."

 

Neglect in its nature is even more selfish and childish than cheating. It's the kids' attitude "I am not going to eat this, but I won't let YOU eat it either!"

 

After all, when the deprived party stops the sex completely (without letting it happen once a month, whenever the other spouse feels like), the disinterested one may - just may - become more interested and do something about it.

I'm not going through the whole discussion again. If you go back to my responses you will find most of those issues previously discussed.

 

Cheating is appalling, regardless. Most cheaters sleep with both. Live and learn.

[Ladyjane14]

So we are back to that again. If a woman withholds sex, then somehow the man must have not given her enough love and attention. But if the man cheats because the woman withholds sex, then he alone is at fault.

 

A person who actively DECIDES to solve their problem by means of BETRAYAL is always responsible for that particular decision. Yes. I agree with that. No one else gets to decide what kind of integrity we're going to have.

 

But a woman who chooses to withhold sexual fulfillment from her husband is not ALWAYS doing it in response to not receiving enough love and attention. Sure, that's the case in alot of scenarios... but not always.

 

What a man can do is to lay out the best possible parameters for his wife to feel comfortable making a decision to participate in the marriage sexually, but he can't choose FOR her. That means he ALWAYS puts in his 100%, regardless. But he can't negotiate her choice in any long-lasting way. He can't barter with her. She MUST choose for herself, and she must see the necessity of doing so in terms of keeping her relationship healthy.

 

Look at it like this.... When a man is promoting emotional intimacy and doing his best job maintaining that dynamic, he's meeting her halfway. She has no excuse for resentment.

 

But if she's not making the mental jump and pushing herself to make the effort, she's NOT doing her half.

(husband)----------->[sF]/////////<-----(wife)

 

This is that inexplicable "lightbulb moment" I've been trying so long to make low-libido women understand. That it's NECESSARY to bridge that gap. She has to push herself to a state of empathy, to let go of her previous hypnosis and LOOK through the "male lens" to the best of her ability. She has to challenge herself to bridge that gap at every opportunity.

 

You guys who aren't getting enough can't take responsibility for that. All you can do is make your own decision on whether you're willing to put up with it or not. IOW, if you've set the parameters for success consistently over a long period of time and she's still not meeting you halfway... all that's left to do is to decide if you're staying or going.

 

I'll tell you honestly though... sometimes a woman doesn't reevaluate her mindset until she sees your tail lights in the driveway. Marital crisis can be a powerful motivator if you can tolerate the risk.

[Mr. Lucky]

I'll tell you honestly though... sometimes a woman doesn't reevaluate her mindset until she sees your tail lights in the driveway. Marital crisis can be a powerful motivator if you can tolerate the risk.

I think you hit the nail on the head. My biggest frustration in that situation would simply be the lack of options - having decided that you won't leave and knowing your partner won't budge (or even discuss or acknowledge the problem or its effects), you left with zip, nada, zero. That would be the hardest thing for me to deal with .

 

My wife and I figured out early on in our relationship that we had different sex drives - mine higher and her's lower. I'd like to take the credit, but somehow she just understood that we BOTH were going to have to adjust our expectations for things to work sexually for us. Not always what I want but I always feel her love and committment...

 

Mr. Lucky

[Ladyjane14]

My biggest frustration in that situation would simply be the lack of options - having decided that you won't leave and knowing your partner won't budge (or even discuss or acknowledge the problem or its effects), you left with zip, nada, zero. That would be the hardest thing for me to deal with

 

Yeah... you're right. It seems like there are no options in a situation like that. But I believe there's ALWAYS a solution. Sometimes, it's just not the one we most want.

 

It's kind of like an old vinyl record with the needle stuck in a groove. Do we have the nerve to give that needle a nudge? Are we willing to risk damaging our favorite album beyond repair? We can rely on the mechanism and allow the stereo to restart the record.

....But in real life, there aren't any do-overs, so that doesn't work.

 

Breaking a stalemate just doesn't come without it's own inherent risk. You can be gentle or you can be tough, but either way the status quo must be overcome in order for real and lasting change to happen.

[Kislette]

If you keep piling more wrongs onto a marriage, it's doomed to implode. By your own logic, she has the right to cheat on him because he's not meeting her emotional needs enough to power her up to want to have sex with him.

 

This has got to be the most immature attitude ever. You hurt me so I will hide, lie and cheat to get what I need. Oh yeah, well I'll go out and get me what I need and hide, lie and cheat to get what I want.

 

Best to address the real issues upfront. If they are unresolveable, you have zero basis for a marriage. Once again, it's that simple.

 

You seem to have a need to be judgemental about people placed in a situation where they have to make a difficult choice. It is just YOUR opinion that it's immature to make a compromise in order to keep from destroying an otherwise great relationship. It might be easy for you to just leave if you're not getting everything you want from a relationship, but that's not true for everyone.

[Herzen]

You seem to have a need to be judgemental about people placed in a situation where they have to make a difficult choice. It is just YOUR opinion that it's immature to make a compromise in order to keep from destroying an otherwise great relationship. It might be easy for you to just leave if you're not getting everything you want from a relationship, but that's not true for everyone.

 

 

Thank-you Kislette for your healthy injection of realism, as opposed to moralism, into the discussion. The fact of the matter is that it's often difficult to leave a spouse and family--especially with young children--because of a healthy spouse's sexual dysfunction.

 

So one does the next best thing: have an affair.

 

Honesty does not, and should not, invariably trump family.