Throwing husband a bone?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Wow. This post is so full of sexist stereotypes I don't even know where to begin. I get that you're pissed off about your personal situation but here's a clue--not every marriage in the world is just like yours. And as much as you'd like to make the issue black and white, it's not always about poor, long-suffering men and bitchy, withholding women.

Re-read the thread. That's exactly what this is about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You do realize this works both ways, right? DW isn't having her needs met outside the bedroom so her level of desire and attraction is low. She complains and DH says he would be better if he got more sex. She complies but still doesn't get what she wants and the downward spiral begins.

This is bullshit.

It's possible that some guy somewhere some time has promised his wife he'd clean the garage if she gave him a BJ, and then she gave him a BJ, and then he didn't clean the garage. Maybe that has happened some time, although probably not more than once in any given relationship.

On the other hand, it is clear from this thread and others that lots of women have told their husbands they're not in the mood for sex because a lengthy set of conditions haven't been met. Those poor saps then meet the conditions, only to find that the fine print still reads, "I'm tired."

Stop acting like the high-desire man and the low-desire woman are playing the same game.

I am one of those poor saps.. I made a deal that for every large contractor bag full of stuff I cleaned out of storage.. I would be able to do something. After over 8 of those full large bags noThing happened. My DW and I have made several "deals" only to have me make the effort and she make none. So I stopped cleaning out our storage and when she complains about it.. I remind her. But my DW has been trying to get the kids to pressure me to clean out the storage area... That pisses me off. I have been tempted to tell my kids that their mom and I made a deal and their mom did not live up to her end of the bargain.

Yes I know this sounds like a bad situation.. The irony is that I want to get out of the marriage and before I can do anything... I need to go through and purge what is in. Storage. But now I have a different motivation.

I do not understand why two married people just can't have fun and have a healthy sex life rather than create drama over stupid little things. If your S/O is helping with your kids and around the house. And they fulfill their role in the family.. Bread winner or sahm or etc.. Stop being selfish and help each other.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Wow. This post is so full of sexist stereotypes I don't even know where to begin. I get that you're pissed off about your personal situation but here's a clue--not every marriage in the world is just like yours. And as much as you'd like to make the issue black and white, it's not always about poor, long-suffering men and bitchy, withholding women.

Re-read the thread. That's exactly what this is about.

I've actually read the entire thread, as well as the one that originated this spin-off. Perhaps you need to look again. Lots and lots of posts from women who are pissed off about withholding and/or entitled men.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Wow. This post is so full of sexist stereotypes I don't even know where to begin. I get that you're pissed off about your personal situation but here's a clue--not every marriage in the world is just like yours. And as much as you'd like to make the issue black and white, it's not always about poor, long-suffering men and bitchy, withholding women.

Re-read the thread. That's exactly what this is about.

I've actually read the entire thread, as well as the one that originated this spin-off. Perhaps you need to look again. Lots and lots of posts from women who are pissed off about withholding and/or entitled men.

I'm another one of the female posters irked with refusals. I didn't identify myself as female in every post I've made in this thread.

It's a high drive partner vs low drive partner issue.

[Anonymous]

In a marriage, you aren't entitled to anything except fidelity. Which effectively means that, so long as the marriage lasts, the low drive spouse is empowered to compel chastity by the high drive spouse.

[Anonymous]

Probably should have said "celibacy" instead of "chastity."

[Anonymous]

Last I checked, this discussion wasn't about people who get NO sex, it was about a mis-match in drives that results in one partner getting LESS sex than he or she would ideally prefer. So no one is compelling celibacy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Last I checked, this discussion wasn't about people who get NO sex, it was about a mis-match in drives that results in one partner getting LESS sex than he or she would ideally prefer. So no one is compelling celibacy.

There is no bright line. Is once a year functionally different from celibacy? No. Is once a week, even if you'd like more? Yes. Is once a month? Probably. Is once every six months? Probably not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Last I checked, this discussion wasn't about people who get NO sex, it was about a mis-match in drives that results in one partner getting LESS sex than he or she would ideally prefer. So no one is compelling celibacy.

There is no bright line. Is once a year functionally different from celibacy? No. Is once a week, even if you'd like more? Yes. Is once a month? Probably. Is once every six months? Probably not.

How about once in about last nine years?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What ethical choices are there for a high drive spouse whose partner can't or on't meet his/her sexual needs? If you believe that sexual fidelity means sexual exclusivity, it is incumbent on you as a loving partner to meet your spouses need. If you don't believe this, then an open marriage is in order.

The same could be said of virtually any unmet need within marriage. Sex is of no greater or lesser importance than needs such as affection and emotional intimacy from a loving partner.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Last I checked, this discussion wasn't about people who get NO sex, it was about a mis-match in drives that results in one partner getting LESS sex than he or she would ideally prefer. So no one is compelling celibacy.

There is no bright line. Is once a year functionally different from celibacy? No. Is once a week, even if you'd like more? Yes. Is once a month? Probably. Is once every six months? Probably not.

How about once in about last nine years?

If your partner hasn't had sex with you in 9 years there's a lot more going on than just mid-matched sex drives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In the "would you be upset with your husband over this" thread, quite a few posters mentioned that they thought the wife should have sex with her husband even if she doesn't want to, to keep him satisfied and from looking elsewhere. Do you really think the pressure should be on women to do this? Do men really want their wives to "put out" even if they're not in the mood?

The pressure is on both people to do this, not to prevent cheating, but just to be a decent spouse. I remember reading once, I think in Carolyn Hax, that when you get married you take responsibility for someone else's sex life, which made a lot of sense to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What ethical choices are there for a high drive spouse whose partner can't or on't meet his/her sexual needs? If you believe that sexual fidelity means sexual exclusivity, it is incumbent on you as a loving partner to meet your spouses need. If you don't believe this, then an open marriage is in order.

The same could be said of virtually any unmet need within marriage. Sex is of no greater or lesser importance than needs such as affection and emotional intimacy from a loving partner.

Sex is affection and emotional intimacy. What makes it different is that it's of a specific type that spouses are forbidden to get from outside of the marriage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What ethical choices are there for a high drive spouse whose partner can't or on't meet his/her sexual needs? If you believe that sexual fidelity means sexual exclusivity, it is incumbent on you as a loving partner to meet your spouses need. If you don't believe this, then an open marriage is in order.

The same could be said of virtually any unmet need within marriage. Sex is of no greater or lesser importance than needs such as affection and emotional intimacy from a loving partner.

And as a spouse it is your responsibility to try to cultivate these things, as well. Sex and emotional intimacy are not mutually exclusive. Quite the opposite.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What ethical choices are there for a high drive spouse whose partner can't or on't meet his/her sexual needs? If you believe that sexual fidelity means sexual exclusivity, it is incumbent on you as a loving partner to meet your spouses need. If you don't believe this, then an open marriage is in order.

The same could be said of virtually any unmet need within marriage. Sex is of no greater or lesser importance than needs such as affection and emotional intimacy from a loving partner.

And as a spouse it is your responsibility to try to cultivate these things, as well. Sex and emotional intimacy are not mutually exclusive. Quite the opposite.

Actually, my husband sees no connection between the two, which is part of the problem.