|
Post by carl on Oct 30, 2017 20:44:32 GMT -5
I figure most people know the answer to this but I can’t completely make sense of it. Why would a refuser want their partner to be faithful ? I can see that outsourcing wouldn’t suite a lot of those who are refused for many good reasons but I was wondering what everyone’s thought were with regards to a refuser wanting their partner to stay but not tolerating outsourcing. It seems hypocritical.
|
|
|
Post by baza on Oct 30, 2017 21:03:21 GMT -5
Well of course it is hypocritical.
But the thing is, that if you choose to stay in such an environment, you become part of the hypocrisy. You become "part of the act".
You may well not be happy in being "part of the act", indeed you may be quite resentful about being "part of the act", but you ARE "part of the act".
Actually, an integral "part of the act". The act can't go on without your participation in it.
|
|
|
Post by northstarmom on Oct 30, 2017 21:55:18 GMT -5
They want their partner to be faithful because refusers have the good sense to realize that if someone else gives their partner something the partner wants that refusers won't give, their partner may decide to dump their refuser. Refusers want to stay married -- for companionship, money, help around the house, etc. They just don't want to have sex with their partner. But they don't want their partner to have sex elsewhere because that may cause their partner to divorce them.
|
|
|
Post by M2G on Oct 30, 2017 22:56:15 GMT -5
More than that, it's about control and manipulation. Maybe the refuser is mimicking a parental model. Maybe the refuser is rebelling against the opposite model. Maybe, the refuser had so little control, that they're terrified to lose even the smallest bit of that control.
Maybe the refuser was so traumatized in childhood that the thought of sex triggers them into a panic attack or, maybe the refuser is just a sadistic piece of dogshit that gets off on the emotional pain of others. After all, we humans can sink to some very low levels, no?
We have a couple of the sincere ones on the other board. Terror issues. Working therapy regularly, working to deal with past trauma. It's hideous, and heartbreaking, to hear how the past can demolish the present. I should know, to my shame, by letting my abuser control me from beyond the grave.
End of day though the only advice I can give in that case is let their partner know what's going on, else they risk losing said partner for good.
On this board I would wager you won't see the recovering refusers. Just the refusing spies, of the malevolent kind. The plight of the former though can tear your heart out.
What a shithole, this ILIASM.
|
|
|
Post by james on Oct 31, 2017 4:10:11 GMT -5
Hi Carl, I do wonder about that question quite a lot. Conversation 1: Me: Is sex important? W: Yes Me: So why don't you acknowledge it in the relationship, talk to me about it, work more on having it? Conversation 2: Me: Is sex important? W: No Me: Ok, so you won't mind if I have sex with someone else then? Either way, her position doesn't stack up. I think the answer is that she doesn't actually think about whether sex is important or not. It's a non-issue for her. Another version: My dear wife, I have stuck with you for the last 10 years in this sexless relationship, feeling frustrated, angry, resentful and miserable. You won't discuss it with me or acknowledge that it is a problem for me. You won't negotiate about it. If you were just to raise your little finger to say I could have sex with someone else whilst staying in the relationship, I would be incredibly happy and love you for the fact that you acknowledged my problem. It would make me less likely to leave you, not more likely. Again, her position on this doesn't seem to stack up. While I'm here: I enjoy listening to Woman's Hour from the BBC. They're doing a series this week on sex and relationships. They had an interview with a proper, fully paid up refuser recently. I thought we don't get to hear their side of the story very much on this site. It's interesting to listen to what she has to say: www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09bxk36#play The interview starts at 16 minutes. I'm not sure if it's available outside the UK- perhaps someone could let me know? Part of me felt some sympathy for her, part of me felt angry as her efforts to deal with the issue seem more than a bit lame. I thought it highly likely that if her husband wasn't already outsourcing then he would be soon. Mainly, I thought- well, she's actually far more ok with the status quo than he is (I imagine) so she needs to get a handle on that soon or her marriage will be over.
|
|
|
Post by hopingforachange on Oct 31, 2017 6:05:07 GMT -5
Control
Without control then they lose everything.
|
|
|
Post by DryCreek on Oct 31, 2017 9:48:29 GMT -5
carl, "That's mine, and you can't play with it even if I don't want to." Same mentality. Control, as other have replied. I think many are in denial that there's an issue, and endorsing their spouse going elsewhere means not only discussing the issue but openly admitting the reality to themselves and others that become aware. (i.e., guilt, shame) For others, it's about their marriage (and thus, lifestyle) being threatened because someone else will make their spouse happy when they refuse to. (Entrapment) And yet, for some it's about exerting dominance and control in every way they can, and such a move means they no longer control that facet of life. james, the podcast plays fine from the US.
|
|
|
Post by lwoetin on Oct 31, 2017 10:52:41 GMT -5
I figure most people know the answer to this but I can’t completely make sense of it. Why would a refuser want their partner to be faithful ? I can see that outsourcing wouldn’t suite a lot of those who are refused for many good reasons but I was wondering what everyone’s thought were with regards to a refuser wanting their partner to stay but not tolerating outsourcing. It seems hypocritical. my wife has low desire and she is faithful. I have high desire and I am faithful. If either of us is not faithful, the marriage would fail. I don't see hypocrisy in expecting fidelity in marriage. I do expect her to have sex with me though.
|
|
|
Post by allworkandnoplay on Oct 31, 2017 21:50:50 GMT -5
The institution of marriage is seen as "sacred" and "forever". Refusers stick to the part that says, "for better or worse," and tell you that you just have to deal with it because that is what you do in a marriage. Meanwhile, the refused are stuck on the "to have and to hold" part (a euphemism for sex in marriage) to which the refusers completely disregard. So-called "cheaters" are then seen as unfaithful to the marriage vows, and often seen as the "bad guys" in the relationship when often it is the refusers are just as much at fault for being unfaithful - at least from a certain point of view.
|
|
|
Post by M2G on Oct 31, 2017 22:53:08 GMT -5
The institution of marriage is seen as "sacred" and "forever". Refusers stick to the part that says, "for better or worse," and tell you that you just have to deal with it because that is what you do in a marriage. Meanwhile, the refused are stuck on the "to have and to hold" part (a euphemism for sex in marriage) to which the refusers completely disregard. So-called "cheaters" are then seen as unfaithful to the marriage vows, and often seen as the "bad guys" in the relationship when often it is the refusers are just as much at fault for being unfaithful - at least from a certain point of view. Well sure I believe in better or worse, two against the world if that's what it comes down to. Relationship trumps all. But it takes two, together, to make that work. If either or both actively make things worse by abuse, betrayal, or withholding intimacy then the relationship crumbles. *poof* For fuck sake, she won't even tell me why. How can I possibly do anything with that, except to just follow through on my plan to break away? Oy.
|
|
|
Post by M2G on Oct 31, 2017 23:01:30 GMT -5
...but back on point: when a healthy person is denying sex this is called punishment and control. Denying sex because its "not important" while not allowing the refused to seek it elsewhere is hypocritical IMO.
|
|
|
Post by baza on Oct 31, 2017 23:48:41 GMT -5
I guess that begs the obvious question Brother M2G . "How big a deal to you is hypocrisy in your spouse" ??
|
|
|
Post by M2G on Nov 1, 2017 4:16:07 GMT -5
I guess that begs the obvious question Brother M2G . "How big a deal to you is hypocrisy in your spouse" ?? Baza - a very big deal. Big enough for me to leave, but not big enough for me to walk away from our house half-finished and lose 5 figures on the sale.
|
|
|
Post by rejected101 on Nov 1, 2017 4:30:37 GMT -5
Does anyone have a view on whether watching porn and jerking off as a preference to partnered sex being a form of infidelity? It may not be the conventional way to cheat on your partner but sure as hell feels like you are being cheated on!
|
|
|
Post by elkclan2 on Nov 1, 2017 4:43:18 GMT -5
Does anyone have a view on whether watching porn and jerking off as a preference to partnered sex being a form of infidelity? It may not be the conventional way to cheat on your partner but sure as hell feels like you are being cheated on! Yes, I absolutely feel that this is infidelity! This was my ex's preference. He much preferred wanking to having sex, usually. I have no problem with masturbation, at all, but I do feel that it is a form of cheating when you do it as a preference. I would sometimes wake up in the night to his vigorous self-love and reach out to touch him only for him to push me away with a noise of disgust. I would sometimes BEG him to do a masturbation moratorium, just for a couple of weeks, to see if it would improve our sex life. He point blank refused. My current partner spends about one night a week away from me and I know that he often masturbates on those nights and so do I. But he definitely prefers partnered sex and occasionally if we have to be away from each other we sometimes sext and masturbate, so it's still 'partnered' sex in a way. Nothing wrong with that.
|
|