Kislette Posted July 6, 2007 Share Posted July 6, 2007 Thank-you Kislette for your healthy injection of realism, as opposed to moralism, into the discussion. You state my position better than I do myself! It is arrogant and unrealistic to try to enforce your own morals on everyone else. Your moral code should be your guide for how to live your OWN life, not the standard you use to judge whether or not other people are good or bad. Link to post Share on other sites
Trialbyfire Posted July 6, 2007 Share Posted July 6, 2007 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. Did you even read the rest of my responses to this thread before responding as such or did you make a big whacking judgement call based on selective posts? Pot, kettle, black... Link to post Share on other sites
Kislette Posted July 6, 2007 Share Posted July 6, 2007 Did you even read the rest of my responses to this thread before responding as such or did you make a big whacking judgement call based on selective posts? Pot, kettle, black... Ok, I did read your other posts, but I missed the end of one where you suggested discussing open marriage. What is a man supposed to do when his wife refuses to have sex with him and has made it clear she won't toelrate having an open marriage? Link to post Share on other sites
Trialbyfire Posted July 6, 2007 Share Posted July 6, 2007 Ok, I did read your other posts, but I missed the end of one where you suggested discussing open marriage. What is a man supposed to do when his wife refuses to have sex with him and has made it clear she won't toelrate having an open marriage? WALK! How simple is that? Link to post Share on other sites
Kislette Posted July 6, 2007 Share Posted July 6, 2007 WALK! How simple is that? I and a few other posters already explained to you how that is NOT simple. Link to post Share on other sites
Trialbyfire Posted July 6, 2007 Share Posted July 6, 2007 I and a few other posters already explained to you how that is NOT simple. It is that simple. Anything else is called self-entitlement by having your cake and eating it too. Are you afraid to lose a few bucks? Link to post Share on other sites
Ladyjane14 Posted July 6, 2007 Share Posted July 6, 2007 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. I see your point, hon... but in real life, how did that work out for you? Was sexual dysfunction part of the equation in your story? Did it lead to your decision to seek outside the marriage? And if so, was it worth the pain and acrimony upon discovery of the affair? Link to post Share on other sites
CynicalP Posted July 6, 2007 Share Posted July 6, 2007 WALK! How simple is that? Oh really? Hmm perhaps losing more than half of his earnings, savings, investments, and living with a financial tether to someone he who never wishes to interact with again. Loss of his house, Loss of his children. Yup sure sounds simple to me. If the wife has absolutely no respect or regard in meeting her husband sexual/physical needs then her claim his fidelity should be null and void. In essence her relationship to her husband is nothing more than a financial arrangement and the convenience of sharing a household together. Link to post Share on other sites
Kislette Posted July 6, 2007 Share Posted July 6, 2007 Another situation that wouldn't make it so simple to just leave is a person who is disabled but can still perform sexually without any problems. I just think that these are situations you can't offer just one solution to, especially if you're not the one who's actually in the situation. Link to post Share on other sites
Trialbyfire Posted July 6, 2007 Share Posted July 6, 2007 Oh really? Hmm perhaps losing more than half of his earnings, savings, investments, and living with a financial tether to someone he who never wishes to interact with again. Loss of his house, Loss of his children. Yup sure sounds simple to me. If the wife has absolutely no respect or regard in meeting her husband sexual/physical needs then her claim his fidelity should be null and void. In essence her relationship to her husband is nothing more than a financial arrangement and the convenience of sharing a household together. Breeding is an instinctual need. The byproduct is the pleasure derived from it. With this in mind, why would the woman you're describing not be interested in the man who she married to? Could it be that there's something lacking in the marriage, perhaps an emotional need that he's also not providing? Chicken and the egg argument. Mommy, I hit her because she hit me first but she doesn't know I hit her back... Link to post Share on other sites
Kislette Posted July 6, 2007 Share Posted July 6, 2007 Could it be that there's something lacking in the marriage, perhaps an emotional need that he's also not providing? Chicken and the egg argument. There really is no way for a person outside the marriage to know that for sure. However, some women have the idea that it's wrong for them to have sex with their husbands if they're not "in the mood" and that men only want sex for selfish reasons. There are also several reasons women's libido goes down without it having to do with emotional needs the husband is not providing - mental illness, medications, menopause, being overweight. Link to post Share on other sites
Moose Posted July 6, 2007 Share Posted July 6, 2007 WALK! How simple is that?Wow....so.....if I asked my wife to let me have some on the side since she obviously can't keep up, and she refuses, I should just walk? How about my integrity? What do I tell my kids when they're full grown? "Mom couldn't cut it in the sack, so I went and found someone who could".......what light to you think they'll see me in then? How about my friends? How about people I don't even know, or want to get to know? How do I even live with myself? Sure, the sex isn't anywhere near as frequent as I would like it to be. But the years and years of investing financially, personally, and faithfully isn't worth losing just because I'm a horny old fart either..... Don't these kind of things bother anyone anymore??? Link to post Share on other sites
Trialbyfire Posted July 6, 2007 Share Posted July 6, 2007 There really is no way for a person outside the marriage to know that for sure. However, some women have the idea that it's wrong for them to have sex with their husbands if they're not "in the mood" and that men only want sex for selfish reasons. There are also several reasons women's libido goes down without it having to do with emotional needs the husband is not providing - mental illness, medications, menopause, being overweight. The concept of "wrong to have sex" should have been discovered previous to the marriage. So you're saying that if someone is ill or on meds, it's okay for the other spouse to cheat? Link to post Share on other sites
Trialbyfire Posted July 6, 2007 Share Posted July 6, 2007 Wow....so.....if I asked my wife to let me have some on the side since she obviously can't keep up, and she refuses, I should just walk? How about my integrity? What do I tell my kids when they're full grown? "Mom couldn't cut it in the sack, so I went and found someone who could".......what light to you think they'll see me in then? How about my friends? How about people I don't even know, or want to get to know? How do I even live with myself? Sure, the sex isn't anywhere near as frequent as I would like it to be. But the years and years of investing financially, personally, and faithfully isn't worth losing just because I'm a horny old fart either..... Don't these kind of things bother anyone anymore??? Are you suggesting that it's far better to cheat instead so you can look good in the eyes of your children and save yourself a few bucks? Link to post Share on other sites
CynicalP Posted July 6, 2007 Share Posted July 6, 2007 Breeding is an instinctual need. The byproduct is the pleasure derived from it. With this in mind, why would the woman you're describing not be interested in the man who she married to? Could it be that there's something lacking in the marriage, perhaps an emotional need that he's also not providing? Chicken and the egg argument. Mommy, I hit her because she hit me first but she doesn't know I hit her back... Why would a woman not be interested in a man she is married too. The reasons can be infinite. Here are some of my favorites: she has procreated enough children to satisfiy her instinctual needs and therefore no longer has the desire or motivation to have sex. She has complicated her life with work, family, shopping, or meeting personal demands, etc that she no longer has the time nor enegry to devote to sex. She has become too comfortable in her relationship with her mate that she has let her body go and now has developed self conscience issues and no longer feels sexually attractive. I am sure other guys here can add to the list. What is more powerful on human behavior, subconscience instinctual needs or congitive conscious wants? By the way thanks for totally equating a man's need for sexual gratification (instinctual behavior mind you) as nothing more than immature disagreement between siblings. What was that about women's emotional needs? Link to post Share on other sites
Moose Posted July 6, 2007 Share Posted July 6, 2007 No, I'm saying it's far WORSE to cheat, and just plain stupidity to ask the wife if I can have sexual relations outside of our marriage. I'm not out to, "look good" in front of my kids either. I'm out to BE good FOR my children..... And what is this, "save a few bucks" thing you've been talking about? If you're talking about me losing out financially in the event of divorce.......that's laughable...... Link to post Share on other sites
Kislette Posted July 6, 2007 Share Posted July 6, 2007 The concept of "wrong to have sex" should have been discovered previous to the marriage. So you're saying that if someone is ill or on meds, it's okay for the other spouse to cheat? A lot of people seem to be able to hide their true feelings about certain things until long after the wedding vows. And I'm not really trying to say when it's ok to cheat, I'm saying that people shouldn't be judged so harshly for it. And I'm not saying that because of my past, I'm saying that because I think none of us is perfect and passing judgement is often conterproductive. Link to post Share on other sites
Herzen Posted July 6, 2007 Share Posted July 6, 2007 I see your point, hon... but in real life, how did that work out for you? Was sexual dysfunction part of the equation in your story? Did it lead to your decision to seek outside the marriage? And if so, was it worth the pain and acrimony upon discovery of the affair? It was never a factor. My ex and I maintained conjugal relations. I suspect that a true sex boycott involving a physically and emotionally healthy spouse is extremely rare. My point is that exiting a marriage and family is much easier said than done. And when a spouse chronically withholds affection, it strikes me as unfair to expect the FS ("frustrated spouse") to leave everything he/she loves for physical gratification. I would argue that the healthy WS ("withholding spouse") by her conduct has relinquished any right to, or reasonable expectation of, fidelity. If there's no quid, then expect no quo. This is that hard case where honesty may not be the best policy--let alone the way to live. By the way, do I know you? Link to post Share on other sites
Ladyjane14 Posted July 6, 2007 Share Posted July 6, 2007 I suspect that a true sex boycott involving a physically and emotionally healthy spouse is extremely rare. I agree. I think it's more likely a lop-sided libido issue in the majority of cases rather than a "true boycott". That said, I do remember one guy posting who hadn't had marital relations in EIGHT YEARS. My point is that exiting a marriage and family is much easier said than done. And when a spouse chronically withholds affection, it strikes me as unfair to expect the FS ("frustrated spouse") to leave everything he/she loves for physical gratification. The alternative though is to introduce the potential for even more devastation and acrimony upon discovery of the infidelity. Divorce isn't easy, but you yourself are divorced, correct? Is your life horrible? Are you in constant misery? I would argue that the healthy WS ("withholding spouse") by her conduct has relinquished any right to, or reasonable expectation of, fidelity. If there's no quid, then expect no quo. And I would argue that a withholding spouse has lost his/her right to the marriage itself rather than his/her right to the truth. Otherwise, the mere circumstances surrounding our lives determine 'who we are' and our choices no longer honor our substance. By the way, do I know you? Nope. But your writing style is distinctive with superior vocabulary, and I believe I can count at least 3 other previous incarnations. If I'm mistaken, do correct me. Link to post Share on other sites
Trialbyfire Posted July 6, 2007 Share Posted July 6, 2007 No, I'm saying it's far WORSE to cheat, and just plain stupidity to ask the wife if I can have sexual relations outside of our marriage. I'm not out to, "look good" in front of my kids either. I'm out to BE good FOR my children..... And what is this, "save a few bucks" thing you've been talking about? If you're talking about me losing out financially in the event of divorce.......that's laughable...... Moose, this is your choice in life then. Myself, I would never have an open relationship. It's not in me. If my partner were to shut me down by showing me that he wasn't interested or for some reason, there was no longer an emotional connection, my libido would shut down completely. While in an exclusive relationship with an emotional connection, my libido is insanely high. Beyond that, I'm disinterested in any form of physical interaction. It's all part and parcel of caring about the other individual. If there's no emotional connection, is it really a marriage? I'm not convinced of this. Link to post Share on other sites
Trialbyfire Posted July 6, 2007 Share Posted July 6, 2007 A lot of people seem to be able to hide their true feelings about certain things until long after the wedding vows. And I'm not really trying to say when it's ok to cheat, I'm saying that people shouldn't be judged so harshly for it. And I'm not saying that because of my past, I'm saying that because I think none of us is perfect and passing judgement is often conterproductive. If you try before you buy, you will know the difference between someone who's into you or not. As a woman, I'm sure you understand what I mean. There are blatantly obvious physical signs... If a man can't tell the difference...he's in denial. Link to post Share on other sites
StayClose Posted July 6, 2007 Share Posted July 6, 2007 The way people have sex during the first year they're having sex provides no clue to how they'll have sex in 10 years. Read the "Sexless Marriage" threads here and you'll see lots of stories about spouses who were very into it twice a day at first, and after several years of parenting and other stresses of life, once a month is too often. Link to post Share on other sites
Kislette Posted July 6, 2007 Share Posted July 6, 2007 Unfortunately you can only tell if someone is into you right now, not if they will be forever. That's a risk you have to take and I don't think that people are foolish for doing so. Link to post Share on other sites
Trialbyfire Posted July 6, 2007 Share Posted July 6, 2007 I understand how marriages can deteriorate but why allow them to? It's negligence on both sides. If one party changes sufficiently that they're no longer invested in their partner, why stay in a marriage that you're either only a friend or a room-mate with? Staying for the kids and then cheating, doesn't fix the core problems. Either fix it or move on. Don't waste your life. Staying for the kids can be more detrimental than worthwhile. Even if you're still friends, it's not building a healthy pattern. At least in an open marriage situation, you're both adult enough to realize that the other person has needs and you both want to stay for the kids or for whatever reason you feel is justified in staying. Once again, so people don't blast me for open marriages, I wouldn't do it myself. Sorry but I won't settle for second best. Link to post Share on other sites
Kislette Posted July 6, 2007 Share Posted July 6, 2007 Once again, so people don't blast me for open marriages, I wouldn't do it myself. Sorry but I won't settle for second best. Is this something people have a history of doing here? Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts