|
Post by Apocrypha on Mar 7, 2022 9:59:42 GMT -5
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. I'm not clear on why it seems important here, in these many examples, to insist on the terming the averse partner as "low libido". Or, "low libido with spouse". The simplest explanation is that they aren't low libido at all; they simply lack a viable (by their measure) sexual partner. If we cling to this low libido terminology, why not say that every person posting on ILIASM is low libido because they don't have sex with their spouse as well? Of course they are not "low libido"; they simply lack viable sexual partners as well (in this case, a spouse that wants to have sex with them, vs a spouse whom they do not see as a sexual candidate) I don't think this is splitting semantical hairs; I think it's an important, game-changing difference in framing the problem and shifting the responsibility of who needs to act to change the situation from a celibate stalemate. I view a "low libido" in a partner in a similar way I might view someone with a weight problem, or high cholesteral, or low blood sugar. In other words, it's a problem to be solved and possibly medicalized and formulated and my problem as a husband to endure - in sickness and in health. My sense of duty commands me to do that all day and night. But it isn't though. The problem is that she's just not that into me for whatever reasons she has, and I can only do so much to live up to whatever promise she imagined. The extent of my duty changes when it's not a health problem she's suffering, but simply the fact that she isn't joining me in marriage. As for a normal libido (yet averse with their own spouse) acquiescing to occasional sex with them (c ertainly NOT mounting them three times a week), I'm sure most of us have tales of once-in-while couplings that happen on vacation, or out of the blue, and dissipate by the next morning when a followup is attempted, and left us confused. If the spark was there last night why not the next morning? Because of shame - for the same reason people feel uncomfortable having sex with someone they don't desire in the singles' world, because they were just horny and it was convenient.
|
|
|
Post by cagedadventurer on Mar 7, 2022 21:34:35 GMT -5
“She never joined the marriage”. This is deep Apocrypha yet should have been obvious. I admit I never quite mentally articulated it this way. During one of our talks, my wife admitted that the evening of our wedding (probably 5 hours following our vows and we were making final preparations to head to Jamaica) that she knew this is not what she “wanted”. Never actually joining the marriage is exactly what occurred here. It explains the continual resistance to doing anything together unless kids are involved. Her sister early on surmised that we were “catdog” in honor of a cartoon from the 90’s. The character and imagery speaks for itself. The sex had been regular then the ring swap and sex was delayed until day 3 of the honeymoon. Then the spring was sprung once our first was born and sex became something NOT to do anymore. The more secure life became, house, job, cars, money, etc. the less sex was available just as ironhamster surmised.
Trips, excursions, or adventures I planned (had to plan) were typically met with quiet resistance where I once asked her why she had to always be a hostile passenger analogous to a hostile witness, not actually hostile but certainly not cooperative or too willing without significant coercion. Early on she opened her own checking account and I was a house mate that she really couldn’t run from because of my relationship with our son. I’d say the same for me but at 5 years I DID give her divorce papers with a monthly stipend telling her I had plans for life and I could not function like this anymore. She cried and agreed to get help. Same ‘ole – reset sex, get pregnant again sex but not sex for “us”. At the 15 year mark, I again told her how we were splitting up and how it would work. She again remembered how to take off her clothes and bide more time. But as was mentioned on another post "Being refused in a marriage does not compute with the brain" yet so many things she has stated over the years tells me she cannot wrap her head around why sex even needs to be part of marriage. It’s a reality of polar opposite, non-redeemable mindsets but now thinking of it as “she never joined the marriage” I need not try to pretend the marriage actually exists or existed. Still frustrating but it helps. I can sleep on the couch and she won't beg me not to. I sleep better and less frustrated and feel better not pressing to do what she has worked so diligently to avoid. I am pleasant, we carry on but I keep busy doing what I want and with the kids or my side of the family and she knows not to have any expectations on me and it's okay for me to have my emotional wall up now. She reinforces daily that she'd rather forfeit all the benefits of a solid marriage in order to avoid touch. It must be important to her so I'll respect it until I move on.
|
|
|
Post by mirrororchid on Mar 8, 2022 5:07:08 GMT -5
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. I'm not clear on why it seems important here, in these many examples, to insist on the terming the averse partner as "low libido". Or, "low libido with spouse". The simplest explanation is that they aren't low libido at all; they simply lack a viable (by their measure) sexual partner. If we cling to this low libido terminology, why not say that every person posting on ILIASM is low libido because they don't have sex with their spouse as well? Of course they are not "low libido"; they simply lack viable sexual partners as well (in this case, a spouse that wants to have sex with them, vs a spouse whom they do not see as a sexual candidate) I don't think this is splitting semantical hairs; I think it's an important, game-changing difference in framing the problem and shifting the responsibility of who needs to act to change the situation from a celibate stalemate. I view a "low libido" in a partner in a similar way I might view someone with a weight problem, or high cholesterol, or low blood sugar. In other words, it's a problem to be solved and possibly medicalized and formulated and my problem as a husband to endure - in sickness and in health. My sense of duty commands me to do that all day and night. But it isn't though. The problem is that she's just not that into me for whatever reasons she has, and I can only do so much to live up to whatever promise she imagined. The extent of my duty changes when it's not a health problem she's suffering, but simply the fact that she isn't joining me in marriage. As for a normal libido (yet averse with their own spouse) acquiescing to occasional sex with them (c ertainly NOT mounting them three times a week), I'm sure most of us have tales of once-in-while couplings that happen on vacation, or out of the blue, and dissipate by the next morning when a followup is attempted, and left us confused. If the spark was there last night why not the next morning? Because of shame - for the same reason people feel uncomfortable having sex with someone they don't desire in the singles' world, because they were just horny and it was convenient. I'm thoroughly on board with you that "low libido" is over-diagnosed by a great many that arrive here. Your skepticism is immensely useful towards cushioning a blow yet to come if that same partner seems to adore a new partner and they'd have to face the truth alone later. What I am postulating is that asexuality actually does exist, and you have said as much, but have suspected such a disposition is rare. I agree and suggest there is a bell curve in play and that low-libido is more common than asexuality. People who never want it with anyone more than once a month. Some twice a year. You didn't say shame was a common reason or the only one, but allow me to offer the possibility that the one encounter has satiated the Mrs.' physical drive and will have sufficed for a time substantially longer than her husband (feel free to reverse the roles, ladies), who initiates the next morning. It may be regret indeed. Demonstrating attraction encourages him to initiate and rejecting her husband is not fun and she's going to have to for weeks or months once again, waiting for that unusual time when sex sounds good. Stepping outside of our biological/psychiatric mechanism investigation, I can back up and say the whole "low libido" aspect is commonly a tool of "why chasing" and serves no purpose towards solving sexless marriages. Your medical conditions observation being a fitting analogy. If the spouse doesn't want to go on a high-fiber diet low in processed carb, how much nagging does one wish to do? Why need one delve into the psychological and physical reasons why? They need to decide to change, if it's going to happen. Taking them to Chopt when they want IHOP is just going to cause arguments. A long conversation as to why they don't like Sweetgreen is likely not on their to do list. Is a libido bell curve not possibly a thing? (as pointless as it may be to attempt to identify someone else's level, much less do anything with that information)
|
|
|
Post by Apocrypha on Mar 8, 2022 10:30:30 GMT -5
I think it's an important, game-changing difference in framing the problem and shifting the responsibility of who needs to act to change the situation from a celibate stalemate. I view a "low libido" in a partner [....] a problem to be medicalized my problem as a husband to endure - in sickness and in health. But it isn't though. The problem is that she's just not that into me for whatever reasons she has, and I can only do so much to live up to whatever promise she imagined. The extent of my duty changes when it's not a health problem she's suffering, but simply the fact that she isn't joining me in marriage. I'm thoroughly on board with you that "low libido" is over-diagnosed by a great many that arrive here. Your skepticism is immensely useful towards cushioning a blow yet to come if that same partner seems to adore a new partner and they'd have to face the truth alone later. What I am postulating is that asexuality actually does exist, and you have said as much, but have suspected such a disposition is rare. I agree and suggest there is a bell curve in play and that low-libido is more common than asexuality. People who never want it with anyone more than once a month. Some twice a year. [...] Stepping outside of our biological/psychiatric mechanism investigation, I can back up and say the whole "low libido" aspect is commonly a tool of "why chasing" and serves no purpose towards solving sexless marriages. Your medical conditions observation being a fitting analogy. If the spouse doesn't want to go on a high-fiber diet low in processed carb, how much nagging does one wish to do? Why need one delve into the psychological and physical reasons why? They need to decide to change, if it's going to happen. Taking them to Chopt when they want IHOP is just going to cause arguments. A long conversation as to why they don't like Sweetgreen is likely not on their to do list. Aesexuality has been tracked in the medical field and is exceedingly rare - lower than 1% - whereas most dysfunctional marriages (higher than 50%) involve a lengthy period of little to zero sexual activity, and that period is often attributed to low libido and aesexuality despite the statistical unliklihood. But even considering anecdotal and personal experiences, aesexuality and other forms of complicated sexuality would most often present BEFORE the marriage and after puberty. Unless one is in a culture that suppresses or persecutes/harasses sexual liberalism and non-traditional sexuality, it shouldn't be a surprise. In Western civilizations, there seems to be some anecdotal evidence that people with sexual shame or unwanted sexual thoughts are more attracted to sexually repressive religious sects as a way to "hide" their lack of sexual participation in what they see as a socially presentable way - or to camouflage their overzealous protests within a wider culture. "Methinks thou doth protest too much!" I have certainly met people like this. I differ with you on a point about the importance of solving sexless marriages (low libido or "just not that into you"). When I define "solving" as bringing it to a truthful resolution, one way or another, I think it's immensely helpful, and I wish so much that I had come to this insight earlier in my own journey. If you are suggesting that it doesn't help to turn the averse partner on to you, I 100% agree. It doesn't. But it does change your "duty of care" in the situation from your partner to yourself. As long as I am imagining that my partner's missing desire for me is something wrong with HER - like a gall bladder that fails to fire - it seems like a treatable problem, where the answer is something to find together, elusive and just around the corner. This is why people go chasing boner pills and hormones and doctor appointments and couples therapy. And then that partner doesn't take those pills, or doesn't make the appointments, or uses the therapy sessions to justify the aversion externally -seems the most common result. And who does the heavy lifting in all these sessions, arranging, advising, following up, prompting and threatening? We both know it's not the averse partner. But acting on reasonable evidence that the averse partner is "just not that into me" anymore, and taking consequential action to move on, balances more of the burden of effort onto the averse partner, to prove otherwise or get help if they truly think they want to, rather than just running out the clock while we all pretend at marriage. It changes the way I come at this and puts more responsibility on ME to act, instead of putting the responsibility on her to act - when she is already acting in accordance with how she feels.
|
|
|
Post by dallasgia on Mar 8, 2022 11:17:29 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! Hey daddeeo, would you offer up Some of the books you used to study up On this?
|
|
|
Post by TheGreatContender -aka Daddeeo on Mar 8, 2022 16:30:07 GMT -5
dallasgia. I don't have any books per se. But there is a lot of material out there, both formal research and articles that cover mimicry, behavior mirroring, or chamelioning by its other names. This one might be a good one to start. imaginehealth.ie/the-psychology-of-mirroring/FWIW, this insight was first revealed to me a few years back by a colleague. But the lightbulb never really went off until recently.
|
|
|
Post by mirrororchid on Mar 9, 2022 6:02:47 GMT -5
.. most dysfunctional marriages (higher than 50%) involve a lengthy period of little to zero sexual activity, and that period is often attributed to low libido and aesexuality despite the statistical unlikelihood. ...aesexuality and other forms of complicated sexuality would most often present BEFORE the marriage and after puberty. Unless one is in a culture that suppresses or persecutes/harasses sexual liberalism and non-traditional sexuality, it shouldn't be a surprise. ...In Western civilizations, there seems to be some anecdotal evidence that people with sexual shame or unwanted sexual thoughts are more attracted to sexually repressive religious sects as a way to "hide" their lack of sexual participation in what they see as a socially presentable way... ... acting on reasonable evidence that the averse partner is "just not that into me" anymore... puts more responsibility on ME to act, instead of putting the responsibility on her to act - when she is already acting in accordance with how she feels. So if all diminishing of libido is attributable to dynamics between specific people, might there be differences in people's tendency to lose attraction more consistently with any new partner they connect with? That is, the faux pas that puts off one spouse will be laughed off or eventually forgotten by another? Might this be a mechanism by which some couples do not encounter the problem of the dysfunctional 50%? I figured people go to their parents church, but if a prospective spouse joined a church after puberty, that could be a huge red flag. Then again, it's a warning if they grew up stewing in shame. You'll want some sign that they eye-roll during those particular sermons. The last could depend on what a refuser thinks "into us" means. Many mouth the words. In case of medical issues, their emotional attachment may be as close as they get. Their devotion could be powerfully strong. They'd never contemplate an affair, and not just because it's sinful. They may well miss sex. They just don't do much about it, nor accept advances. Yes, they're still not into you in the way we're discussing. Quite a different picture that the spouse who doesn't even want to want it. Quite possibly little difference in the remedy, despite the reluctant refuser's wishes. It can make a difference when the refused does take action. a refuser who is emotionally would strike me as being more likely to take action against their own failure to engage and overcome whatever block is in their way, producing a lengthier reset than the one planning what minimal charade will postpone the refused's solution.
|
|
|
Post by Apocrypha on Mar 10, 2022 12:00:10 GMT -5
.. most dysfunctional marriages (higher than 50%) involve a lengthy period of little to zero sexual activity, and that period is often attributed to low libido and aesexuality despite the statistical unlikelihood. ...aesexuality and other forms of complicated sexuality would most often present BEFORE the marriage and after puberty. Unless one is in a culture that suppresses or persecutes/harasses sexual liberalism and non-traditional sexuality, it shouldn't be a surprise. ...In Western civilizations, there seems to be some anecdotal evidence that people with sexual shame or unwanted sexual thoughts are more attracted to sexually repressive religious sects as a way to "hide" their lack of sexual participation in what they see as a socially presentable way... ... acting on reasonable evidence that the averse partner is "just not that into me" anymore... puts more responsibility on ME to act, instead of putting the responsibility on her to act - when she is already acting in accordance with how she feels. So if all diminishing of libido is attributable to dynamics between specific people Again - I'm sorry I'm not going to let this slide past the goalie - the whole point of my statement if you get it (whether or not you agree with it) is that it is NOT a diminishment of libido. It's an aversion of sexual attraction to one's "committed partner". It's a lack of sexual pursuit and activity with that partner. In a monogamous relationship in which cheating hasn't happened yet, this will superficially present the same way as a diminishment of libido. But likely the libido will be relieved in other private ways, or with other partners and outlets, or channeled into zealous pious celibacy (ie. taking up a pious religious stance), or just plain celibate suffering, same as the jilted spouse. Fact: Diminishment of sexual activity between specific people, and of the quality of that activity. Thesis 1: it is attributable to how the averse partner feels about the spouse they have sexually abandoned. Thesis 2: it is attributable to how the averse partner feels about the circumstance/dynamics of the relationship format (ie. what was hot as a single/FWB/affair partner/girlfriend is not desired within the context of being married to that person when they don't want to be married to that person) Thesis 3: a medical change reduces libido (confirmation test - are other outlets fantasized about, explored?) Thesis 4: an environmental change reduces libido (ie. overwhelming event based temporary stress makes a person feel unsexual or takes priority - though this is not necessarily so - given that many people seek reassurance and MORE sex when otherwise stressed. It's important to be able to tell the difference between the observable fact and a speculated reason for it. If you can't, then you end up advising people to chase an answer for the wrong "why", which is a lot of additional work and will not solve their problem. Maybe. I suspect the safest answer is that often things happen that are of sufficient scale that they change the entire way a person views their spouse. The person they thought they married disappears, and instead they meet the real person. They then need to decide whether to join that person or not. In my case, my ex-wife came from a hellish family situation. She perceived mine to relatively intact, and thought by marrying me she'd have a Jiffy Pop way to start the kind of family she wished she'd had. She thought I'd be a magic dad and easy parent, compared to her tyrannical and remote father. Instead she got a real person, and a real family that needed work on both sides. And every flake of discipline on our child from me was interpreted by her free-range reaction as tyranny. So she grew to cast me in the role of her father, and enact a psychodrama against me. She also wanted the family situation, but didn't actually want to marry. So in my case it was a mixture of thesis 1 (who she now saw me as a person), and thesis 2 (she never ever wanted to get married, but this was the way she thought she'd get the family she mistakenly thought would appear for her if she did). Both were true. In another case I know personally, early on in the marriage, she ended up having to be treated for an STD after her husband went abroad. They had a bunch of young kids and they both backed off the truth of that situation and what it implied. It was a hole at the centre of their marriage, wrapped in shame and habits of lying and mutual resentment. It finally blew apart when the kids were older. So, likely a combo of Thesis 1 and 2. Ya, there is a quality to the piety that I'd want to look at. Whether it is a furious anti gay stance in church (almost certainly they are waging war on their own gay thoughts - I've seen this many times). Or if not church, then pious and furious cleaving to the secular religion of Social Justice/Race and Gender Marxism - where, similar to the gay homophobes - there are misogynist rapey male feminists, or race-essentialist "anti-racists" with paranoid rantings of white supremacists around them, as pervasive as a Satan to a Born Again. I know a shit ton of rabid misandrists who couch their hate in feminist dogma, where their rants are generally applauded - but they are also miserable incels where it comes to men - and often pre-emptive architects of their own romantic failure. In the singles scene - I meet a lot of these due to the algorithm likely picking up on my Women's Studies postgrad stuff and atypical non-partisan centrist politics. It's always a red flag and I always check for it. Especially because they almost always demand BDSM flavours in their sex in which they are sub - which I'm not against - but I'm not going to do that with someone who hates men, even if I'm "one of the good ones" for now. Ya I think this is could result from any of the 4 thesis reasons. Mrs Apocrypha, herself - in spite of all abundant evidence (affair, routine self gratification, a robust appetite in an open relationship, applied to the paramour, a robust appetite pre-marriage, and apparent pursuit of partners after marriage) still clings to the idea that her libido was just weaker than mine. Her appetite especially spiked when we agreed to separate, which led to her pitching the open relationship - realizing temporarily that she COULD feel sexual - and that she was optimistic that she could eventually bring that to me after finding it elsewhere. But the simple answer here isn't her own sexual complication, which she assumed (or lied about but i don't think so), but rather her aversion to me and the marriage itself - these are the common denominators. For me, the practical remedial advice is to focus on who has the responsibility to act, and to act upon whom. A refuser who is abstaining from sex they could otherwise have, is likely acting totally in accordance to how they feel. Fixing this is a fool's errand for the refused, and the refuser perpetuates a celibate state they are prepared to endure until the clock runs out or until they develop some other adaption (like an affair). The best practical advice I can offer on this board is to put a time-box around a perpetual celibate state. From the moment one becomes aware of it, the responsibility and focus should be on the refused improving themselves such that they could feel attractive and confident again as a single person, with the full intent that this may be a reality. Because at least 50/50 it is going to be the reality from the date you marry, and likely much higher if they are already on this board. Odds are good, you are going to be single again, one way or another. So get started now on any of the positive personal and lifestyle changes you'd want to make to prepare for that. There's an off chance the new you and new life you lead might spark a relationship 2.0 with the person you are married to. But it's up to that person to join you in marriage, which they haven't yet despite having had a wedding. Most cases? They'd rather blow up the house, household, kids, finance etc than endure the sex - and that tells you pretty much all you'd need to know about the marriage and how they feel about you. Better to find out sooner than later.
|
|
|
Post by mirrororchid on Mar 22, 2022 5:06:20 GMT -5
So if all diminishing of libido is attributable to dynamics between specific people Again - I'm sorry I'm not going to let this slide past the goalie - the whole point of my statement if you get it (whether or not you agree with it) is that it is NOT a diminishment of libido. It's an aversion of sexual attraction to one's "committed partner". It's a lack of sexual pursuit and activity with that partner. In a monogamous relationship in which cheating hasn't happened yet, this will superficially present the same way as a diminishment of libido. But likely the libido will be relieved in other private ways, or with other partners and outlets, or channeled into zealous pious celibacy (ie. taking up a pious religious stance), or just plain celibate suffering, same as the jilted spouse. Fact: Diminishment of sexual activity between specific people, and of the quality of that activity. Thesis 1: it is attributable to how the averse partner feels about the spouse they have sexually abandoned. Thesis 2: it is attributable to how the averse partner feels about the circumstance/dynamics of the relationship format (ie. what was hot as a single/FWB/affair partner/girlfriend is not desired within the context of being married to that person when they don't want to be married to that person) Thesis 3: a medical change reduces libido (confirmation test - are other outlets fantasized about, explored?) Thesis 4: an environmental change reduces libido (ie. overwhelming event based temporary stress makes a person feel unsexual or takes priority - though this is not necessarily so - given that many people seek reassurance and MORE sex when otherwise stressed. It's important to be able to tell the difference between the observable fact and a speculated reason for it. If you can't, then you end up advising people to chase an answer for the wrong "why", which is a lot of additional work and will not solve their problem. Okay. This post was huge for me. Worth taking 12 days to respond (partially due to an unusual crush with my small business.) This rephrasing made a more clear distinguishing between sex and sexual thought. It clicked and some points obvious to others weren't in my sight previously, so I'll share them with anyone else who missed them. Basically just giving specific scenarios for the generalities you superbly outlined.
Some conservatives, Catholics to be sure, have no issue with homosexuality. A conservative friend explained that the abominable (Biblically defined) thoughts aren't the sin. It's the actual action of following through with the desire. Thus, their indifference towards homosexual desire being common among their priests. Just so long as they stay celibate, they have nothing to repent. I've been conflating celibacy and low libido. My terms were imprecise and thus, so was my thinking. For some reason, I got to switching gender roles this time and the constancy of libido made sense. One of the most common possible reasons for sexlessness from refusing husbands is porn addiction. A man may be interested in sexual gratification 2,3, 10 times a day. He satisfies this desire (libido) with a plethora of movies, books, comics, etchings, or operettas he finds online or under his mattress. Some of the criticism of porn is its capacity to encourage variety rather than commitment. It creates arousal from non-living things and undermines connection with partners. In some of the sexless marriages, religion may have made his practice of porn use commendable. He stayed virginal until marriage. Kudos! Marriage, family, and children may be desired due to parental or societal pressure or the prestige being a family man conveys. There may be some vague desire for it internally. As an eligible, moral bachelor, he may get "set up" with a bride to court. He may find one attractive and decide to get around to that whole family thing he always meant to check off. A lady may pursue him or put the idea in his head. Perhaps our lusty bachelor then discovers partner sex is the best kind. He invests himself fully and may even believe he prefers it. But then, some period of time later, the porn competes. The variety of the fake. two dimensional sex objects horns in and his sexual desire (libido) gets reallocated more towards the porn. The amount of lust can remain constant from bachelorhood, through honeymoon, through the comfort stage of marriage (where porn may be added to supplement waning sexual activity with his wife, perhaps with his approval) and finally replacing marital sex entirely, orgasms not having changed at all. Lusty women might behave the same with porn and masturbation. They might maintain their constant levels of sexual behavior with affair partners. In religious contexts, they may have fantasies or stoic longing that precedes marriage. The amount of sex they want (libido), but aren't getting, may be constant. They have no sex before marriage because they "aren't that kind of girl". As they court with their suitor and prepare for marriage, they may or may not vary in this desire. One they marry, actual sex follows the desire (libido), but the desire may happen no more frequently than it did before. This amount can be high or low. As marriage proceeds to comfort stage, our hero discussed before replaced intimacy with porn. The chaste bachelorette may replace marital sex with fantasies of sex with someone else, or stoic suppression of lust that she perfected in maidenhood. The reasons for not having sex following desire may vary, but the libido persists at the same low or high level she had pre-marriage. She simply does nothing about those moments of desire, for reasons, or none.
|
|
|
Post by Apocrypha on Mar 22, 2022 7:25:47 GMT -5
It's a lack of sexual pursuit and activity with that partner. In a monogamous relationship in which cheating hasn't happened yet, this will superficially present the same way as a diminishment of libido. But likely the libido will be relieved in other private ways, or with other partners and outlets, or channeled into zealous pious celibacy (ie. taking up a pious religious stance), or just plain celibate suffering, same as the jilted spouse. One of the most common possible reasons for sexlessness from refusing husbands is porn addiction. I think I'm with you for most of the analogy, with a minor quibble about the "porn addiction" - which often strikes me as wrong in a similar manner - akin to "wet streets cause rain". In the example we are discussing, the libido is just fine, but is no longer targeted on the partner to whom they are tethered. THEN they turn to porn or other outlets, as you've mentioned. I suspect the case of bona fide porn addiction (if it exists at all) is somewhere on par with aesexuality - which is to say, quite rare. Just as we often see people misdiagnosing their partners as aesexual and suffering from mental instability because they apparently don't want to boff them anymore, we also see a fair number of diagnoses of porn addiction as well from abandoned spouses. It's a nicer story to tell oneself that their spouse is wasting their finite sexual energy on porn, rather than realizing that their spouse is channeling their energy there as a way of not cheating on a spouse who they don't want to boff. Conversely, on the "intimacy averse" side, I'd wager there is a lot of hasty diagnoses of sex addiction directed at those who keep centering the subject on the lack of sexual activity in a relationship. I certainly caught that kind of flak directed my way, even when we were down to once every few months.
|
|
|
Post by mirrororchid on Mar 22, 2022 20:24:36 GMT -5
One of the most common possible reasons for sexlessness from refusing husbands is porn addiction. I think I'm with you for most of the analogy, with a minor quibble about the "porn addiction" - which often strikes me as wrong in a similar manner - akin to "wet streets cause rain". In the example we are discussing, the libido is just fine, but is no longer targeted on the partner to whom they are tethered. THEN they turn to porn or other outlets, as you've mentioned. I suspect the case of bona fide porn addiction (if it exists at all) is somewhere on par with aesexuality - which is to say, quite rare. Just as we often see people misdiagnosing their partners as aesexual and suffering from mental instability because they apparently don't want to boff them anymore, we also see a fair number of diagnoses of porn addiction as well from abandoned spouses. It's a nicer story to tell oneself that their spouse is wasting their finite sexual energy on porn, rather than realizing that their spouse is channeling their energy there as a way of not cheating on a spouse who they don't want to boff. Conversely, on the "intimacy averse" side, I'd wager there is a lot of hasty diagnoses of sex addiction directed at those who keep centering the subject on the lack of sexual activity in a relationship. I certainly caught that kind of flak directed my way, even when we were down to once every few months. Addictions are supposedly marked by maladaptation. When bad consequences ensue from the use or overuse of the vice. If they'd like to engage the Mrs. but porn is so much easier and enticing, perhaps it would qualify. If the porn consumer doesn't value the spouse or marriage much, then I could see your point. He's not losing anything he cares about, so the term "addiction" may not apply. Some might question his priorities, but the definition may fall short. Refused spouses needing their "fix" as sex addicts, I suppose, can strike the refusers as suffering from an addiction, since the consequences of causing the refuser stress and perhaps ditching the marriage would seem to be high costs. But those deprived find the marriage of diminishing value, so the term arguably doesn't apply. Some may question the priorities. Since refusers don't seem to want anything in particular, there is no addiction, despite the damage and consequences they cause. Perhaps they have a commitment addiction? Societal approval addiction? Outward appearance addiction? These don't apply because refusers don't value the things they're losing (e.g. their spouse's love).
|
|
|
Post by Apocrypha on Mar 23, 2022 11:00:37 GMT -5
Addictions are supposedly marked by maladaptation. When bad consequences ensue from the use or overuse of the vice. If they'd like to engage the Mrs. but porn is so much easier and enticing, perhaps it would qualify. If the porn consumer doesn't value the spouse or marriage much, then I could see your point. He's not losing anything he cares about, so the term "addiction" may not apply. Some might question his priorities, but the definition may fall short. Refused spouses needing their "fix" as sex addicts, I suppose, can strike the refusers as suffering from an addiction, since the consequences of causing the refuser stress and perhaps ditching the marriage would seem to be high costs. But those deprived find the marriage of diminishing value, so the term arguably doesn't apply. Some may question the priorities. Since refusers don't seem to want anything in particular, there is no addiction, despite the damage and consequences they cause. Perhaps they have a commitment addiction? Societal approval addiction? Outward appearance addiction? These don't apply because refusers don't value the things they're losing (e.g. their spouse's love). Agreed, addictions are marked by the behavior's use as a maladaptive - causing harmful consequences that exceed the benefit. So to assess whether it is appropriate to apply here, it's important to consider "maladaptive to WHAT?" In the case of sexually abandoned spouses, many use porn to adapt to the scenario of being married to someone with whom they do not have a sexual relationship. This provides a lower risk outlet for sexual expression (perhaps a subpar one), while maintaining the benefits associated from a continued marital household. They use porn as a way to adapt to feeling tethered to an unfulfilling relationship that provides other benefits they aren't yet ready to give up. In the case of marital refuseniks, many use porn to adapt to the scenario of being married to someone with whom they do not have (nor desire) a sexual relationship. This provides a lower risk outlet for sexual expression (perhaps a subpar one), while maintaining the benefits associated from a continued marital household. They use porn as a way to adapt to feeling tethered to an unfulfilling relationship that provides other benefits they aren't yet ready to give up.. I don't agree that the refuseniks don't want anything in particular: they want to continue the benefits associated with a marital household just as much as the sexually abandoned spouses do, likely for the same reasons. There's no basis to bring an "addiction" diagnosis into any of this. If you need to pathologize it, then consider "co-dependency", which is a tough one to escape from or see because the institution itself fosters it. People get trapped in pathologizing their partner's coping mechanisms for choosing to remain in an unfulfilling relationship - both sides. "Your sex addiction is insatiable! You never stop talking or thinking about it!" "Your porn addiction is using up finite desire that rightfully should belong to me! You obviously hate sex - let's talk about it until we figure out what you like!"These two trajectories will never intersect downstream. They can't. The divergence happened upstream.
|
|