|
Post by rejected101 on Feb 26, 2022 20:35:21 GMT -5
Well I haven’t been here for a very very long time. However, my sexless marriage is done, finished and lawfully dissolved. So why am I here after more then 3 years later? It’s to tell you to leave yours (assuming it is in any way possible). So my sexless marriage lasted just under 15 years. I was always a firm believer that it would one day, come good. I always ignored some of the more cut throat comments on here which insinuated or outright said there was an underlying issue in the marriage and I clung to the hope things would change and improve. Sometimes they did but it was always generally short lived before the default settings slowly came back. How did it end….my hand was forced. I kid you not…she cheated. She did the cheating after years of turning me down. Ironic. And it damn near broke me. So here is my take on things now. Unless there is a significant and reasonable explanation for sex having dried up such as mental health, physical disability or significant age playing a major factor, it’s more then likely that there is an underlying issue. Do yourselves a favour (unlike what I did), love yourselves enough to know you deserve a shit load better then zero sex or the breadcrumbs many people are offered. I’m in a different relationship now, I picked very very wisely and now it’s me who struggles to keep up with her sex drive (but I’m having a damn good crack at trying and a lot of fun). My ex’s affair was the best thing that happened to me as I was treading water for years and I wouldn’t have got out to see what life has to offer had I not have been dunked under so badly. I wish you all well!
|
|
|
Post by baza on Feb 26, 2022 22:14:12 GMT -5
Great to hear from you Brother rejected101 . It is fantastic to hear that your ILIASM deal was brought to a resolution after all those years. The way that resolution came about must have been a big slap in the face at the time, but sometimes it takes a event like cheating to force you into making a choice you might otherwise not have been able to make. You seem to be a much happier person than you were a couple of years back. And thanks for the update. Any newbie here would do well to read all your back threads I reckon.
|
|
|
Post by rejected101 on Feb 27, 2022 4:09:33 GMT -5
Great to hear from you Brother rejected101 . It is fantastic to hear that your ILIASM deal was brought to a resolution after all those years. The way that resolution came about must have been a big slap in the face at the time, but sometimes it takes a event like cheating to force you into making a choice you might otherwise not have been able to make. You seem to be a much happier person than you were a couple of years back. And thanks for the update. Any newbie here would do well to read all your back threads I reckon. A few years back I just couldn’t see it any other way. I was convinced it would get better and submerged myself in researching things like ‘responsive vs spontaneous desire’ and so on believing there was a fix that I could tap in to. In the end the fix was being cheated on and the marriage breaking down. I would imagine there may be cases where the Iliasm scenario improves or heals but my guess this would be an overwhelmingly low percentage of the time and probably close to 0%. So why bother living in poverty hoping you may win the lottery as the odds are not dissimilar. Now that I am out it was like removing contact lenses that had been blocking my vision and I began the realisation that the sex life I had with my ex (which was very much a case of ‘when she fancied a shag’) mirrored many other elements of our relationship. She was selfish, it was about whether her needs were met, I was an after thought and I just didn’t see it. Someone put up a thread on here where they’ve suffered years of it although it sounded more to do with the physical decline of his wife which is extremely sad. I mirror his views which are, if you are young enough, get the fuck out of it!
|
|
|
Post by TheGreatContender -aka Daddeeo on Feb 27, 2022 9:35:39 GMT -5
Hey rejected101 I remember you! Thanks for posting the follow up! Congrats on the exit! Bittersweet I'm sure. One thing you said that I wanted to follow up on. Breadcrumbing... for newcomers to SMs, if you are not familiar with the term, google it in the context of relationships. TLDR - in the context of relationships, mimicking, and knowing when not to mimic non verbal communication can be a tool for effective relationship maintenance. I suspect that a majority of us in SMs are not familiar with breadcrumbing or struggle to identify and/or react to it. As a side note, for me it was a bit of both. First recognizing that it was happening, but later reacting to it in a conducive manner. The reason I zoom in on breadcrumbing is I have started to apply a technique recently across all my relationships, personal and professional, that I have found very powerful when used effectively with emphasis on effectively. The tactic of mimicry. In a nutshell, mimicry in relationships consists of the extent of overlapping non-verbal cues shared in exchanges. It can consist of facial expression, dress, tone of discussion (mild vs passionate), temperament and so forth. What I have found very powerful in engagement is mimicking the energy level that the other party or in group settings, parties, put into the exchanges and communication. At a subconcious level, I believe we all perceive mimicry or the absence of it. But at a concious level. I am not so sure it is as prevalent. Try it at your next work meeting or conversations with friends. See who is engaged and to what extent. Are there imbalances? I think the imbalances are interesting cues. We've all been witnesses to Karen's losing their shit at Target, right? Notice the imbalances? Or for instance in a national intelligence or military context we have all heard of the concepts of situational awareness and blending in. If a counter intelligence officer is gathering intelligence in a target setring, s/he will effectively mimic the behaviour of the environment so as to blend in and not draw attention to themselves. Back to breadcrumbing. I think in an SM, when we are the recipient of breadcrumbing, the default is to rationalize the behavior, and try to over compensate (bacon-scented candles anyone?). I have come to believe that by the time breadcombing occurs, it is a cue that the other party is disengaged. It might be worth investigsting trying to have "the talk" but if it has come to this, the personal connection and emotional investment in engaging is very low. Breadcrumbing is an example of an imbalance where one party is more invested than the other. Applied to relationships, I believe one can be a more engaged and compelling partner if one mimics or if applied with tact, counters the imbalance of energy or emotional investment (as opposed to trying to overcompensate (scented candles)). Practically speaking, why try to force your partner to talk about sex or feelings if they are not on the same page. And conversely, when they do want to engage, are you matching their energy level? Another example. I have seen it argued that when dealing with narcistic behavior, one counters by taking a neutral to distant stance. That is you dont engage or feed the narcistic behavior. To me this is an example of countering as opposed to mimicking unwanted behavior. It is another level of relationship processing for sure but one well worth looking into for all our engagements, both professional and personal. FWIW, I suspect that the ability to succesfully employ mimicry in relationships comes natural to some and not to others. But I believe that becoming aware of mimicry and how to use it can enhance the quality of the engagement and keep us from investing too heavily in less healthy relationships. It will definitely NOT fix an SM, but it might lead to a better outcome quicker. Well I haven’t been here for a very very long time. However, my sexless marriage is done, finished and lawfully dissolved. So why am I here after more then 3 years later? It’s to tell you to leave yours (assuming it is in any way possible). So my sexless marriage lasted just under 15 years. I was always a firm believer that it would one day, come good. I always ignored some of the more cut throat comments on here which insinuated or outright said there was an underlying issue in the marriage and I clung to the hope things would change and improve. Sometimes they did but it was always generally short lived before the default settings slowly came back. How did it end….my hand was forced. I kid you not…she cheated. She did the cheating after years of turning me down. Ironic. And it damn near broke me. So here is my take on things now. Unless there is a significant and reasonable explanation for sex having dried up such as mental health, physical disability or significant age playing a major factor, it’s more then likely that there is an underlying issue. Do yourselves a favour (unlike what I did), love yourselves enough to know you deserve a shit load better then zero sex or the breadcrumbs many people are offered. I’m in a different relationship now, I picked very very wisely and now it’s me who struggles to keep up with her sex drive (but I’m having a damn good crack at trying and a lot of fun). My ex’s affair was the best thing that happened to me as I was treading water for years and I wouldn’t have got out to see what life has to offer had I not have been dunked under so badly. I wish you all well!
|
|
|
Post by rejected101 on Feb 27, 2022 14:50:33 GMT -5
Hey rejected101 I remember you! Thanks for posting the follow up! Congrats on the exit! Bittersweet I'm sure. One thing you said that I wanted to follow up on. Breadcrumbing... for newcomers to SMs, if you are not familiar with the term, google it in the context of relationships. ”One thing you said that I wanted to follow up on. Breadcrumbing... for newcomers to SMs, if you are not familiar with the term, google it in the context of relationships.” So for me, the breadcrumbs I referred to were meant to be an analogy for being fed but being left starving as the crumbs just don’t cut the mustard. In the context you have mentioned there seems to be a far more deliberate and sinister process. In actual fact it looks like breadcrumbing is a method of control. I’m not sure my ex was attempting that but I most certainly can’t rule it out. My gut feeling would be that she was simply selfish and ate what was right for her with no regards to anyone else. Could she have offered more then her natural sex drive would typically allow? I’m living proof that this is possible and ironically my libido has increased over the last 18 months due to demand. I refused to turn down as I refuse to be a refuser (within reason). My point being, in many many cases (certainly not all) the SM boils down to the selfishness. One half of the whole believes their half is more significant, more important and should be prioritised.
|
|
|
Post by mirrororchid on Mar 2, 2022 5:48:56 GMT -5
.... I always ignored some of the more cut throat comments on here which insinuated or outright said there was an underlying issue in the marriage and I clung to the hope things would change and improve. ... Now I'm curious which comments struck you as "cut-throat". Any recollection? Funny. baza tells people considering outsourcing that such a choice can rapidly bring sexless marriages to resolution. It works the other way as well, clearly; making some readers clutch harder to their union in rebellion to teh unwelcome hypothesis. More than one SM has seemed to be a coupling of two people refusing to be "the bad guy". In your case your wife's affair seems to have brought you much happiness. Thank you for the unpardonable sin, honey. Then a funny idea came to my mind...and sure enough
Here's a link to TheGreatContender -aka Daddeeo 's term breadcrumbing. Very applicable to SMs, indeed. Sometimes unconsciously. His tactic of matching our rfefuser's lack of enthusiasm does offer the possibility of breaking co-dependency. Following the refuser down the rabbit hole of indifference to allow for hobbies and platonic friendships to take priority over the marriage which may end up being more fulfilling than the marriage can be. If this is a conscious decision with a willingness to follow a partner up to a greater investment, this may be wise. It may also lead to relationships you wish were less platonic and undermine the commitment that maintains the SM. For those devoted to the institution of marriage, this plan is reckless. For those in an SM, it may be indispensable pragmatism that will protect mental health. As a final thought, in the case of refusers with clinical depression, this can put limits on potentially fruitless efforts to fix a situation that won't be helped, absent psychiatric intervention. It can put an end to "why chasing" and switch to puzzled acceptance, a mindset more conducive to solutions that do not depend on cooperation from an indifferent partner. To refer to scant intimacy, perhaps we should instead refer to gestures as "scraps", to avoid ambiguity with this colloquialism.
|
|
|
Post by rejected101 on Mar 2, 2022 6:09:21 GMT -5
.... I always ignored some of the more cut throat comments on here which insinuated or outright said there was an underlying issue in the marriage and I clung to the hope things would change and improve. ... Now I'm curious which comments struck you as "cut-throat". Any recollection? Funny. baza tells people considering outsourcing that such a choice can rapidly bring sexless marriages to resolution. It works the other way as well, clearly. More than one SM has seemed to be a coupling of two people refusing to be "the bad guy". In your case the villain seems to have brought you much happiness. Thank you for the unpardonable sin, honey. Then a funny idea came to my mind...and sure enoughI suppose by “cut throat” I meant the very matter of fact directness that some people relating to underlying issues, whether partners who refuse are even attracted to their spouse and ultimately, all the things someone with hope really really doesn’t want to hear. I always chose to think “but mine is really different. Honest it is. There’s hope for mine”. Reality eventually arrived. There was underlying issues, it wasn’t different to most on here and it’s very probable that my ex wasn’t attracted to me. Those opinions (which various people portray in a number of ways) were correct and it was me that was incorrect. Hope that makes sense.
|
|
|
Post by mirrororchid on Mar 2, 2022 7:01:17 GMT -5
Now I'm curious which comments struck you as "cut-throat". Any recollection? I suppose by “cut throat” I meant the very matter of fact directness that some people relating to underlying issues, whether partners who refuse are even attracted to their spouse and ultimately, all the things someone with hope really really doesn’t want to hear. I always chose to think “but mine is really different. Honest it is. There’s hope for mine”. Reality eventually arrived. There were underlying issues, it wasn’t different to most on here and it’s very probable that my ex wasn’t attracted to me. Those opinions (which various people portray in a number of ways) were correct and it was me that was incorrect.
Subsequent post: Could she have offered more then her natural sex drive would typically allow? I’m living proof that this is possible and ironically my libido has increased over the last 18 months due to demand. I refused to turn down as I refuse to be a refuser (within reason). My point being, in many many cases (certainly not all) the SM boils down to the selfishness. One half of the whole believes their half is more significant, more important and should be prioritised. Yeah. You call it "cut-throat", I'd call it "tough love". It's an unhappy thing when a refused spouse circles the wagons around their refuser, little realizing they're erecting a cage. Apocrypha (the Hulk Hogan of SM "tough love") might say that the refused spouse will consider it selfish to demolish a marriage by making the environment tense and unpleasant nagging for unwanted sex. If the refused would just give it up, they could cross that finish line into the grave in victory. When looking after the other's happiness is the priority, both rising to the occasion and lowering expectations constitute prioritizing the marriage, which may be a selfish wish that benefits both. Perhaps a key issue is the magnitude of the disparity. Refuser wants twice a month, refused wants once a week? Does the refuser engage every ten days and recognize that the compromise brings outsized benefit? Does the refused recognize that the patience avoids resentment and feelings of objectification? Do these compromises grow impossible if the refused wants twice weekly and the refuser is partial to seasonal trysts? Everyday "functional" marriages may be comprised of such dances of give and take. If the needs for intimacy or solitude are great, the tango at arms length becomes untenable?
|
|
|
Post by Apocrypha on Mar 2, 2022 10:07:50 GMT -5
I suppose by “cut throat” I meant the very matter of fact directness that some people relating to underlying issues, whether partners who refuse are even attracted to their spouse and ultimately, all the things someone with hope really really doesn’t want to hear. I always chose to think “but mine is really different. Honest it is. There’s hope for mine”. Reality eventually arrived. There were underlying issues, it wasn’t different to most on here and it’s very probable that my ex wasn’t attracted to me. Those opinions (which various people portray in a number of ways) were correct and it was me that was incorrect.
Subsequent post: Could she have offered more then her natural sex drive would typically allow? I’m living proof that this is possible and ironically my libido has increased over the last 18 months due to demand. I refused to turn down as I refuse to be a refuser (within reason). My point being, in many many cases (certainly not all) the SM boils down to the selfishness. One half of the whole believes their half is more significant, more important and should be prioritised. Yeah. You call it "cut-throat", I'd call it "tough love". It's an unhappy thing when a refused spouse circles the wagons around their refuser, little realizing they're erecting a cage. Apocrypha (the Hulk Hogan of SM "tough love") might say that the refused spouse will consider it selfish to demolish a marriage by making the environment tense and unpleasant nagging for unwanted sex. If the refused would just give it up, they could cross that finish line into the grave in victory. When looking after the other's happiness is the priority, both rising to the occasion and lowering expectations constitute prioritizing the marriage, which may be a selfish wish that benefits both. Perhaps a key issue is the magnitude of the disparity. Refuser wants twice a month, refused wants once a week? Does the refuser engage every ten days and recognize that the compromise brings outsized benefit? Does the refused recognize that the patience avoids resentment and feelings of objectification? Do these compromises grow impossible if the refused wants twice weekly and the refuser is partial to seasonal trysts? Everyday "functional" marriages may be comprised of such dances of give and take. If the needs for intimacy or solitude are great, the tango at arms length becomes untenable? LOL at my characterization as the Hulkster, but I will wear it. I too, discovered that my wife was cheating after years of sex being an issue. Not sure if I mentioned here before - I later discovered that she was in an affair when we got engaged as well. And, as I was surprised to find out at the end of Known Affair #2, when I eventually informed Mrs Apocrypha's affair partner's wife (I gave him a chance to inform her himself, and he immediately chose unwisely), the other cheated-upon wife attacked ME instead of her husband, or in addition to him. That family is still together some ten years later, despite his continued serial cheating. What I make up about this lesson in which people actively go to absurd lengths and risks to blot out the truth with little self-awareness - is that this is likely a common thing, and that people can't see it even when they are looking straight at the answer. They won't. They don't want to. The reason is they are here is to have people tell them a different answer. The proposed negotiation about frequency of intimacy, above - so common in the way we discuss this issue - raises my eyebrow. The reason these compromises always grow impossible is because they operate downstream at the level of frequency of sex, and not at the level of desire for that partner in a marital context. Meaning: 1. Any compromise made will result in engaging in sex that is not wanted, and/or with a person they don't want it with. Likely the latter, not the former. 2. The fact that they don't want to have sex with you will be perfectly obvious to them, and they will blame you for holding them/the marriage hostage to extract unwanted sex - you will be cast as a rutting beast - a monster. 3. If you don't want to have sex with someone, the amount of sex you want with them is zero. If you are into someone that way, the amount of sex you want is likely more. These arrows pull in opposite directions. So any negotiation ends up being about the amount of unwanted sex one person will put up with. And about how much sex with an unwilling partner someone is willing to extract. You both might arrive at a number but it's hardly going to be a victory. At some point even the sex that you DO have will be weaponized by the unwilling partner to ensure that you don't want it either. We can all dilly dally about # of times per month, but it's beside the point if your partner doesn't see you that way or has some kind of contempt attached to you or the marital situation TO you, the number is irrelevant. The fatal flaw is that the person doesn't WANT you, for whatever reasons they have.
|
|
|
Post by mirrororchid on Mar 3, 2022 6:41:05 GMT -5
When looking after the other's happiness is the priority, both rising to the occasion and lowering expectations constitute prioritizing the marriage, which may be a selfish wish that benefits both. Perhaps a key issue is the magnitude of the disparity. Refuser wants twice a month, refused wants once a week? Does the refuser engage every ten days and recognize that the compromise brings outsized benefit? Does the refused recognize that the patience avoids resentment and feelings of objectification? Do these compromises grow impossible if the refused wants twice weekly and the refuser is partial to seasonal trysts? Everyday "functional" marriages may be comprised of such dances of give and take. If the needs for intimacy or solitude are great, the tango at arms length becomes untenable? LOL at my characterization as the Hulkster, but I will wear it. ...The proposed negotiation about frequency of intimacy, above - so common in the way we discuss this issue - raises my eyebrow. The reason these compromises always grow impossible is because they operate downstream at the level of frequency of sex, and not at the level of desire for that partner in a marital context. Meaning: 1. Any compromise made will result in engaging in sex that is not wanted, and/or with a person they don't want it with. Likely the latter, not the former. 2. The fact that they don't want to have sex with you will be perfectly obvious to them, and they will blame you for holding them/the marriage hostage to extract unwanted sex - you will be cast as a rutting beast - a monster. 3. If you don't want to have sex with someone, the amount of sex you want with them is zero. If you are into someone that way, the amount of sex you want is likely more....At some point even the sex that you DO have will be weaponized by the unwilling partner to ensure that you don't want it either... To clarify, I'd been thinking more in terms of compromises refused and refuser make with themselves from unspoken expressions of desire-the refuser recognizing their refusals are frequent, they cannot pinpoint a reason, and they care very much that their refused spouses are craving physical intimacy. They may deliberately read a spicy romance novel to trigger their own desire or take pleasure in bringing their spouse joy even if the physical acts don't produce the intensity they once did? These compromises may wear thin over time, or underlying medical conditions may alleviate the condition and the compromises helped weather the storm. The death spiral of embracing your indifference is acknowledged as the difficult snare we all know very well.
|
|
|
Post by Apocrypha on Mar 3, 2022 10:31:15 GMT -5
To clarify, I'd been thinking more in terms of compromises refused and refuser make with themselves from unspoken expressions of desire-the refuser recognizing their refusals are frequent, they cannot pinpoint a reason, and they care very much that their refused spouses are craving physical intimacy. They may deliberately read a spicy romance novel to trigger their own desire or take pleasure in bringing their spouse joy even if the physical acts don't produce the intensity they once did? These compromises may wear thin over time, or underlying medical conditions may alleviate the condition and the compromises helped weather the storm. The death spiral of embracing your indifference is acknowledged as the difficult snare we all know very well. It's not indifference though, is it? If you would knowingly risk evaporating your shared future, divide your income and friends, multiply your expenses, wreak havoc on your children, and gaslight and harm your spouse rather than have sex with the person you live with, that's a stand that's quite important to you; not indifference. My common refrain here is that the "intimacy-averse spouse" is more likely not intimacy-averse at all, except with people they don't like or don't see as a sexual partner. Irrespective of a wedding having occurred, the demotion from "sexual partner" is a common thing, and as in the singles world, once lost, is virtually irreversible. That's because when it sets in over a long haul, it's about how one sees a partner and feels about them - and not necessarily any specific thing they did. It's about the kind of person they think they are. As such, there's no pleasure or investment at all in bringing their spouse joy. It's more like milking a cow - a chore that needs to be done to ensure the household business is carried out. In a married relationship, that feeling will be evident to both parties even as it is being carried out - and will stoke mutual resentment even if it carried out regularly, efficiently, and with frequency. Romantically, it's empty calories at best, and likely bad for both parties. People get horny and make bad decisions all the time. Maybe once in a long while someone reads something spicy to trigger their own libido and look for a release, but that doesn't mean they are actually into their spouse.
|
|
|
Post by mirrororchid on Mar 4, 2022 5:20:09 GMT -5
These compromises may wear thin over time, or underlying medical conditions may alleviate the condition and the compromises helped weather the storm. The death spiral of embracing your indifference is acknowledged as the difficult snare we all know very well. It's not indifference though, is it? If you would knowingly risk evaporating your shared future, divide your income and friends, multiply your expenses, wreak havoc on your children, and gaslight and harm your spouse rather than have sex with the person you live with, that's a stand that's quite important to you; not indifference. ...It's more like milking a cow - a chore that needs to be done to ensure the household business is carried out. In a married relationship, that feeling will be evident to both parties even as it is being carried out - and will stoke mutual resentment even if it carried out regularly, efficiently, and with frequency. Romantically, it's empty calories at best, and likely bad for both parties. ...Maybe once in a long while someone reads something spicy to trigger their own libido and look for a release, but that doesn't mean they are actually into their spouse. Poor choice of words. Indifference is a point of inflection. To be more charitable, sexlessness can begin with a benevolent indulgence ("Why not?" sex), then a sense of guilt over one's flagging libido. Reading that spicy novel may be a gesture of commitment at these stages. Stoking smoldering embers the refuser wished were hotter.. Then may come a sense of duty to those shared bonds you mention. Reading the novel might be seen as washing your hands before milking the cow. Part of the chore. What may follow is a charitable view towards oneself deciding that one's lower libido can be indulged some of the time and a spouse should be patient with that, to a prioritization of that wish to postpone, and maybe then you'd call it indifference to the spouse's needs because their desire not to is equal in a marriage between equal partners. It may evolve into anger, resentment, and hostility, but getting to the point of indifference is enough to produce SM. It can easily start before indifference, I'd think. The spicy novel may be dispensed with at this point. The potentially useful step of stoking desire, may itself be a resented chore. I'd not thought about this continuum wherein there'd be warning signs for the refuser. Not sure what could be done about them or how many refusers would act. Further, you have postulated that there can be a triggering event that makes sex undesirable. Perhaps there are multiple events that could transition a refuser between the stages I listed. Chipping away at the overall view of the refused as a sexual partner. More than once, I've been wondering if my current reset will inevitably die because of my wife's physical difficulties. She may yet dismiss me to find a mistress. Or divorce me when I explain I'll be getting one. I'll report back if that time comes. I suspect I reversed the continuum to the "guilt" stage. Not ideal, to be sure, but I think medical intervention would be required to do better and the Mrs. isn't taking any steps.
|
|
|
Post by Apocrypha on Mar 4, 2022 12:22:53 GMT -5
To be more charitable, sexlessness can begin with a benevolent indulgence ("Why not?" sex), then a sense of guilt over one's flagging libido. Reading that spicy novel may be a gesture of commitment at these stages. Stoking smoldering embers the refuser wished were hotter.. Then may come a sense of duty to those shared bonds you mention. Reading the novel might be seen as washing your hands before milking the cow. Part of the chore. What may follow is a charitable view towards oneself deciding that one's lower libido can be indulged some of the time and a spouse should be patient with that, to a prioritization of that wish to postpone, and maybe then you'd call it indifference to the spouse's needs because their desire not to is equal in a marriage between equal partners. It may evolve into anger, resentment, and hostility, but getting to the point of indifference is enough to produce SM. It can easily start before indifference, I'd think. The spicy novel may be dispensed with at this point. The potentially useful step of stoking desire, may itself be a resented chore. I'd not thought about this continuum wherein there'd be warning signs for the refuser. Not sure what could be done about them or how many refusers would act. Further, you have postulated that there can be a triggering event that makes sex undesirable. Perhaps there are multiple events that could transition a refuser between the stages I listed. Chipping away at the overall view of the refused as a sexual partner. More than once, I've been wondering if my current reset will inevitably die because of my wife's physical difficulties. She may yet dismiss me to find a mistress. Or divorce me when I explain I'll be getting one. I'll report back if that time comes. I suspect I reversed the continuum to the "guilt" stage. Not ideal, to be sure, but I think medical intervention would be required to do better and the Mrs. isn't taking any steps. Ya, I like the practical way you are trying to parse this out. Generally speaking, I just don't agree with the popular thesis that the "intimacy-averse" spouse in a relationship necessarily has a lower libido: When I used to be the "averse" partner, I had a robust libido. I just didn't exercise it with my committed partner. We've seen a gazillion stories on here of husbands and wives complaining that their sexually averse partner self-pleasures with porn, with shower nozzzles, with various things. I've literally walked in on my sexually averse wife while she was "with herself" twice. And she walked in on me once, with other near misses. And, of course, the affairs. And then there is the question of the pre-marriage - where the libido appears to be fine, or fine with other people. And the post-marriage, where the libido tends to magically restore. It's the most common thing I've seen, dating women who used to be married. I believe libido issue is secondary to the feeling the marriage/commitment itself generates. Having sex, or full sex, either with that person or under that circumstance, signifies endorsement of a larger truth that is contested or resisted. It's the feeling of buying something you don't think you can afford. I can say in my robust post-marriage dating life - especially early on - I had "why not" sex with some frequency. It was an exotic feeling to be wanted and to have something that could satisfy that want, even when I personally wasn't necessarily all that attracted or found the prospect of long term with some partners to be problematic. What I agreed to on one day, I would come to avoid later on. I don't really do "why not" sex anymore, though I would. I think a thing that makes it hard to predict is that the "averse" partner with a high libido may well indeed seek out occasional convenient sex with their committed partner, but only as a result of their own needs and libido, and not because they enjoy their partner or the marriage particularly well. I'm not sure how to measure or predict it early enough in a relationship to avoid permanent damage. I have this general feeling that it's really about whether or not they have "climbed aboard" the committed relationship, or they are just enacting it like an employee working at a job he hates.
|
|
|
Post by angeleyes65 on Mar 4, 2022 18:51:09 GMT -5
Well I haven’t been here for a very very long time. However, my sexless marriage is done, finished and lawfully dissolved. So why am I here after more then 3 years later? It’s to tell you to leave yours (assuming it is in any way possible). So my sexless marriage lasted just under 15 years. I was always a firm believer that it would one day, come good. I always ignored some of the more cut throat comments on here which insinuated or outright said there was an underlying issue in the marriage and I clung to the hope things would change and improve. Sometimes they did but it was always generally short lived before the default settings slowly came back. How did it end….my hand was forced. I kid you not…she cheated. She did the cheating after years of turning me down. Ironic. And it damn near broke me. So here is my take on things now. Unless there is a significant and reasonable explanation for sex having dried up such as mental health, physical disability or significant age playing a major factor, it’s more then likely that there is an underlying issue. Do yourselves a favour (unlike what I did), love yourselves enough to know you deserve a shit load better then zero sex or the breadcrumbs many people are offered. I’m in a different relationship now, I picked very very wisely and now it’s me who struggles to keep up with her sex drive (but I’m having a damn good crack at trying and a lot of fun). My ex’s affair was the best thing that happened to me as I was treading water for years and I wouldn’t have got out to see what life has to offer had I not have been dunked under so badly. I wish you all well! Congratulations! It is so much better on the other side. I came back for the same reason to encourage people and let them know if you're still alive it's not to late to claim your happiness. I also stayed far to long. That is my one regret. I agree we make better decisions after getting out of a bad marriage. I know many like to believe their marriages are good but even your platonic friends care what you need or want and how you feel. So like you I believe unless it is a health issue the marriage is not a good one. Especially if they cut off all affection. There is no legitimate reason for that unless you are paralyzed from the neck down. It cost nothing to be kind. Hugs and kisses and holding hands, snuggling all easy to give. Unless they are so afraid it will lead to sex... And if the thought of having sex with you is that frightening to them you are not in a good marriage.
|
|
|
Post by mirrororchid on Mar 7, 2022 6:21:59 GMT -5
Generally speaking, I just don't agree with the popular thesis that the "intimacy-averse" spouse in a relationship necessarily has a lower libido: When I used to be the "averse" partner, I had a robust libido. I just didn't exercise it with my committed partner. We've seen a gazillion stories on here of husbands and wives complaining that their sexually averse partner self-pleasures with porn, with shower nozzzles, with various things. I've literally walked in on my sexually averse wife while she was "with herself" twice. And she walked in on me once, with other near misses. And, of course, the affairs. And then there is the question of the pre-marriage - where the libido appears to be fine, or fine with other people. And the post-marriage, where the libido tends to magically restore. It's the most common thing I've seen, dating women who used to be married. I believe libido issue is secondary to the feeling the marriage/commitment itself generates. Having sex, or full sex, either with that person or under that circumstance, signifies endorsement of a larger truth that is contested or resisted. It's the feeling of buying something you don't think you can afford. I can say in my robust post-marriage dating life - especially early on - I had "why not" sex with some frequency. It was an exotic feeling to be wanted and to have something that could satisfy that want, even when I personally wasn't necessarily all that attracted or found the prospect of long term with some partners to be problematic. What I agreed to on one day, I would come to avoid later on. I don't really do "why not" sex anymore, though I would. I think a thing that makes it hard to predict is that the "averse" partner with a high libido may well indeed seek out occasional convenient sex with their committed partner, but only as a result of their own needs and libido, and not because they enjoy their partner or the marriage particularly well. I'm not sure how to measure or predict it early enough in a relationship to avoid permanent damage. I have this general feeling that it's really about whether or not they have "climbed aboard" the committed relationship, or they are just enacting it like an employee working at a job he hates. I'd like to suggest that spouses or partners considered low libido may have a tendency to shut off the tap more quickly with any new partner and this may classify them. Some may respond more strongly to bonding hormones like oxytocin as a result of physical intimacy and crave it more. Some may have a mechanism that reduces libido more readily when a partnership has issues. More mechanisms still may dictate how long a refuser will be intimate with their new partner. Surely I'd consider a previous sexual marriage as a warning sign that they may have another. Tough to know which was the refuser without research and perhaps become intimate partners yourself and springing the trap again. While why chasing can be futile, there is something in plays allowing refusers to be ""low libido with you", but at least some degree or number of those mechanisms may be general in nature. I dare say it's likely. To be auto-erotic is indeed sexual, but then we're exercising in semantics. The context of ILIASM is "low libido with a spouse". Whether someone is high or low libido as an auto-erotic person, is that even useful to classify? The idea of a high libido , yet averse partner mounting their lover three times a week because their hormones are revved, yet feeling as though they'd rather be doing something else each time is surreal to me. But perhaps that's some of the wham bam thank you ma'am sex that is the but of so many stereotypical marriage jokes from the ladies'' side. How often does displeasure with the wife produce the minimal effort, selfish sex of these bumbling boudoir buffoons? What would a ravenous female "bad lay" predator be like? Perhaps this is common knowledge and my relative innocence puts me at a disadvantage. Then again, Jessa Reed of Mormon and the Methhead was like that. She seemed driven by her libido to seek out company but even as she was together, sought extraction ASAP, enthusiastically getting her gentleman friend finished quickly. The gents often perplexed by her disinterest in bonding.
|
|