Post by mirrororchid on Nov 11, 2020 16:57:15 GMT -5
This is meant to be a page offering an outline of "The Talk" refused spouses may like to use to compose their own presentation of "The Talk" to their refusing spouse.
This is going to start as a very threadbare effort, but with help from comments, I'll edit this first post into something more thorough.
Bearing in mind perfectionism is a tool of the lazy, I offer this slapdash construct.
itme gaveme the idea that this formula could be used to talk about any very, very serious topic. Just swap out the sexy stuff for whatever the problem is. (overspending, substance abuse, etc.)
After reading some threads about "The Talk", (e.g. iliasm.org/thread/2944/talk-refuser?page=1) my understanding of it is different. Many I've read discuss how to tell the refuser that you're filing for divorce. The recommendation is to announce it, not to ask, or suggest. My vision comes months or years before that one. I was under the impression that "The Talk" was about the unacceptable nature of sexlessness and the requirement that it will stop, one way or another. You will see options that set boundaries on acceptable outcomes. If you are still at a fixing stage, there may indeed be two "Talk"s, but each one about a different subject. First, the sexlessness, next the divorce (which may not be necessary depending on what the result of the first is, be it a "fix" or negotiated infidelity)
Not every possibility is meant to be covered. You can certainly add in your own options.
I've said previously, however: it's called "The Talk", not "The Talks" It's probably wise to mean what you say, and plan ahead as to what will be done if "The Talk" is ignored. If this is not your only "Talk", you may need to preface it with something like, "This is the last time I'll bring this up, and I'm not just saying that. This is the last time." (and make damn sure it is.)
baza would want me to point out that "The Talk", if taken seriously, could trigger unpleasant reactions from a refuser, not excluding fling for divorce themselves. You may wish to consult with a lawyer before you actually have "The Talk", as well as ensure you have a social network ready to weather the fallout from any storm that whips up.
Mix and match the uncomfortable opening:
Mix and match your ongoing state of intimacy.
and
What do you want?
When?
Timeframe/Consequence
Reassurance
Recognize the consequence:
Brace for impact:
mrslowmaintenance linked to a post on deadbedrooms subreddit that is a very thorough list of the attempted defenses LL (low libido) spouses may attempt to counter The Talk with:
iliasm.org/thread/3353/preparing-talk?page=1
While the OP phrases his rebuttal to the defenses, I think each can be rephrased in a more cooperative, hopeful, optimistic manner to suit the first Talk wherein you're demanding improvement in sex frequency/quality. The author's responses all strike me as being suitable for finishing with "...and that's why I want you to sign these papers."
bballgirl posted about her Talk and responded to her X's defenses with, "You're right. We're incompatible." I admired this approach. It's short, fails to feed potential arguing, and it was effective. (for her, and I'd wager many others)
I really hate to meddle with such a decisive, satisfying convention as saying there's just one Talk. Some threads around here recommend the divorce Talk isn't actually a talk. Just a notification that you're done. Does that perhaps mean that the only Talk is the demand for improvement? Some threads seem to support this possibility.
EDIT 3/18/24
Based on a thread begun by Catsloveme, it is possible that a "Talk" constructed without any portions that list conditions for avoiding outsourcing or divorce may bear fruit., When one identifies the celibacy as the cause of misery and do not even mention the partner's role and expect nothing form them to solve the issue, the refuser is left to "fill in the blanks" and it may engage their sympathy for your situation.
It's a bit of a twist on the hate the sin, not the sinner advice. Hate the celibacy, not the refuser.
Research is ongoing, but if you do present a talk this way, please share any results.
This is going to start as a very threadbare effort, but with help from comments, I'll edit this first post into something more thorough.
Bearing in mind perfectionism is a tool of the lazy, I offer this slapdash construct.
itme gaveme the idea that this formula could be used to talk about any very, very serious topic. Just swap out the sexy stuff for whatever the problem is. (overspending, substance abuse, etc.)
After reading some threads about "The Talk", (e.g. iliasm.org/thread/2944/talk-refuser?page=1) my understanding of it is different. Many I've read discuss how to tell the refuser that you're filing for divorce. The recommendation is to announce it, not to ask, or suggest. My vision comes months or years before that one. I was under the impression that "The Talk" was about the unacceptable nature of sexlessness and the requirement that it will stop, one way or another. You will see options that set boundaries on acceptable outcomes. If you are still at a fixing stage, there may indeed be two "Talk"s, but each one about a different subject. First, the sexlessness, next the divorce (which may not be necessary depending on what the result of the first is, be it a "fix" or negotiated infidelity)
Not every possibility is meant to be covered. You can certainly add in your own options.
I've said previously, however: it's called "The Talk", not "The Talks" It's probably wise to mean what you say, and plan ahead as to what will be done if "The Talk" is ignored. If this is not your only "Talk", you may need to preface it with something like, "This is the last time I'll bring this up, and I'm not just saying that. This is the last time." (and make damn sure it is.)
baza would want me to point out that "The Talk", if taken seriously, could trigger unpleasant reactions from a refuser, not excluding fling for divorce themselves. You may wish to consult with a lawyer before you actually have "The Talk", as well as ensure you have a social network ready to weather the fallout from any storm that whips up.
Mix and match the uncomfortable opening:
Snooky, | we gotta talk. |
Cuddlebuns, | you got a minute? |
Sweetie, | I need an hour sometime this week. Just us. |
Teddybear, | no kidding, we're not putting this off any longer. |
Lovalumps, | I really didn't want it to come to this. |
Honey, | I have something unhappy I've got to say |
Mix and match your ongoing state of intimacy.
We're going on | a bunch of | weeks | minus | physical intimacy |
It's been | at least (number) | months | without | sex |
I can't count how many | years | in the absence of | spooning | |
with scarcely any | kissing like lovers do. |
and
I've had as much as I can take. |
I'm done with this. |
it's got to stop. |
I'm at wit's end. |
I've tried to live like we have been and I just can't. |
I'm unhappy enough that we're having this talk. |
What do you want?
I'm looking to reintroduce | intimate kissing | at least | on the hour | and it's not too much to ask. |
I'm going to insist on | naked cuddling | weekly | at a minimum. | |
I can't accept any less than | sex | twice a week | but it's subject to change. | |
It's not unreasonable to expect | physical affection | twice a month | though I'll hear out a counteroffer you'd like to suggest. |
When?
I know you've got a lot on your mind now, | but it needs to be soon. |
This seems like a good time to evaluate just where we are, | but I need to see progress. |
I've been telling you this for quite some time now, | but I'm not waiting around if I don't see some kind of effort. |
It's okay if this isn't overnight, |
Timeframe/Consequence
If things aren't going in a positive direction | in/by <number> (days, weeks, months, years) | I'm switching to the guest room. |
If we haven't gotten to that minimum level | I'm going online to meet someone. | |
I'm moving out. | ||
I'm going to have to file for divorce. |
Reassurance
I hate this | you're all I need | but I do need the physical connection as well as emotional and everyday life support. |
Believe me | I love everything else about our marriage | but this isn't a part of our marriage I'm okay living without anymore. |
I've tried to tell myself this isn't necessary | you're a good husband/wife | and while I need someone to physically connect with, I want it to be you. |
Recognize the consequence:
I know this could mean the end | but I can't wish this away |
Maybe you'll hate me | but it's a deal breaker |
I'm not happy about this at all | but this isn't optional. |
Maybe this is unfathomable to you | but it's an unshakable part of who and what I am. |
Brace for impact:
So... got anything for me? |
Are we okay? |
I hope that came out okay. |
I'm hoping you're up for it. |
mrslowmaintenance linked to a post on deadbedrooms subreddit that is a very thorough list of the attempted defenses LL (low libido) spouses may attempt to counter The Talk with:
iliasm.org/thread/3353/preparing-talk?page=1
While the OP phrases his rebuttal to the defenses, I think each can be rephrased in a more cooperative, hopeful, optimistic manner to suit the first Talk wherein you're demanding improvement in sex frequency/quality. The author's responses all strike me as being suitable for finishing with "...and that's why I want you to sign these papers."
bballgirl posted about her Talk and responded to her X's defenses with, "You're right. We're incompatible." I admired this approach. It's short, fails to feed potential arguing, and it was effective. (for her, and I'd wager many others)
I really hate to meddle with such a decisive, satisfying convention as saying there's just one Talk. Some threads around here recommend the divorce Talk isn't actually a talk. Just a notification that you're done. Does that perhaps mean that the only Talk is the demand for improvement? Some threads seem to support this possibility.
EDIT 3/18/24
Based on a thread begun by Catsloveme, it is possible that a "Talk" constructed without any portions that list conditions for avoiding outsourcing or divorce may bear fruit., When one identifies the celibacy as the cause of misery and do not even mention the partner's role and expect nothing form them to solve the issue, the refuser is left to "fill in the blanks" and it may engage their sympathy for your situation.
It's a bit of a twist on the hate the sin, not the sinner advice. Hate the celibacy, not the refuser.
Research is ongoing, but if you do present a talk this way, please share any results.