Throwing husband a bone?

[Anonymous]

Not sure what thread people are reading, but this discussion has been almost entirely about how the spouse with less interest should be more accommodating.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not sure what thread people are reading, but this discussion has been almost entirely about how the spouse with less interest should be more accommodating.

Right. Because unless the high libido spouse is forcing the other one to have sex, the high libido spouse is already accommodating. But actually, most of this thread has been about how both parties need to find a middle ground that keeps them both happy. High libido has to understand they will get it less than wanted and not give issue to low libido, low libido has to have it more often. Compromise on both sides. However, many are intentionally playing obtuse to this fact. Oh well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not sure what thread people are reading, but this discussion has been almost entirely about how the spouse with less interest should be more accommodating.

That is because that is how the OP structured the post. This thread is a S/O of another thread where compromise is clearly the consensus. IMO however being "more accomodating" does mean compromise. I do not read it to say that I need to satify my DH's every sexual demand but IMO "throwing a bone" means meeting in the middle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not sure what thread people are reading, but this discussion has been almost entirely about how the spouse with less interest should be more accommodating.

That could well be a function of the fact that the low drive spouse has the most direct control over the sex life. The entire period the high drive spouse wants sex but isn't having it is, in effect, an accommodation.

That's fine. Both sides should be accommodating. But, the fact is, the low drive spouse is in a position to ignore the accommodation of the high drive spouse and pretend like s/he isn't giving anything up by not having sex.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have no problem "throwing my husband a bone" occasionally but I do have a problem with the expectation that he gets sex every time he wants it for the good of the marriage, which seems to be the position of many PPs. I'm seeing very little sympathy or understanding for the perspective of the lower-desire partner in this thread.

"Always" "whenever" "every time" "constantly". That's not what this conversation was originally about. I think you'll find very few people who will say that a woman should "always" have sex with her husband "whenever" he wants it. You will, however, find more than a few who seem to think a woman should "never" have sex with her husband unless she wants it --- even if she never wants it.

Most seem to think there is a balance to be struck between those extremes.

EXACTLY!

[Anonymous]

Without some balance, someone is going to feel resentful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Without some balance, someone is going to feel resentful.

And clearly, there are some unbalanced, resentful folks posting in this thread!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is shame that so many women have such a negative view of their DHs and being intimate with them. Every marriage hits a rough patch but geez, I question why some of you are even still married.

It's not about viewing sex negatively, it's about being tired sometimes and not always being in the mood.

Feeling like sex with your husband is a sacrifice, a chore, a duty, a giving in to selfish wants, is about viewing sex negatively and is completely different than occasionally being tired or not in the mood in an otherwise happy, healthy sex life.

When your husband constantly expects sex at times when you are tired and not in the mood, it quickly begins to feel a chore and a sacrifice. Why is that difficult to understand?

When are you not tired, and when are you in the mood? When he's at work or not around? How can that be the standard? Working full time with kids is constantly exhausting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not sure what thread people are reading, but this discussion has been almost entirely about how the spouse with less interest should be more accommodating.

Right. Because unless the high libido spouse is forcing the other one to have sex, the high libido spouse is already accommodating. But actually, most of this thread has been about how both parties need to find a middle ground that keeps them both happy. High libido has to understand they will get it less than wanted and not give issue to low libido, low libido has to have it more often. Compromise on both sides. However, many are intentionally playing obtuse to this fact. Oh well.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not sure what thread people are reading, but this discussion has been almost entirely about how the spouse with less interest should be more accommodating.

That could well be a function of the fact that the low drive spouse has the most direct control over the sex life. The entire period the high drive spouse wants sex but isn't having it is, in effect, an accommodation.

That's fine. Both sides should be accommodating. But, the fact is, the low drive spouse is in a position to ignore the accommodation of the high drive spouse and pretend like s/he isn't giving anything up by not having sex.

This is not always the case. Let's say I want sex once a month and my partner wants it every other day. If we compromise at once a week, he is controlling the situation just as much as I am.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not sure what thread people are reading, but this discussion has been almost entirely about how the spouse with less interest should be more accommodating.

That could well be a function of the fact that the low drive spouse has the most direct control over the sex life. The entire period the high drive spouse wants sex but isn't having it is, in effect, an accommodation.

That's fine. Both sides should be accommodating. But, the fact is, the low drive spouse is in a position to ignore the accommodation of the high drive spouse and pretend like s/he isn't giving anything up by not having sex.

This is not always the case. Let's say I want sex once a month and my partner wants it every other day. If we compromise at once a week, he is controlling the situation just as much as I am.

Not really because the compromise is still far in your favor. You wanted it once a month, he wanted it 15 times a month, you compromised at 4 time a month. Still much closer to what you wanted than to what he wanted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not sure what thread people are reading, but this discussion has been almost entirely about how the spouse with less interest should be more accommodating.

That could well be a function of the fact that the low drive spouse has the most direct control over the sex life. The entire period the high drive spouse wants sex but isn't having it is, in effect, an accommodation.

That's fine. Both sides should be accommodating. But, the fact is, the low drive spouse is in a position to ignore the accommodation of the high drive spouse and pretend like s/he isn't giving anything up by not having sex.

This is not always the case. Let's say I want sex once a month and my partner wants it every other day. If we compromise at once a week, he is controlling the situation just as much as I am.

I think the PP was assuming no compromise. I do agree that in the compromise situation neither party is getting 100% what they want. I do not know if I would call that "control" though. It is a mutual sacrifice for the good of the marriage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not sure what thread people are reading, but this discussion has been almost entirely about how the spouse with less interest should be more accommodating.

That could well be a function of the fact that the low drive spouse has the most direct control over the sex life. The entire period the high drive spouse wants sex but isn't having it is, in effect, an accommodation.

That's fine. Both sides should be accommodating. But, the fact is, the low drive spouse is in a position to ignore the accommodation of the high drive spouse and pretend like s/he isn't giving anything up by not having sex.

This is not always the case. Let's say I want sex once a month and my partner wants it every other day. If we compromise at once a week, he is controlling the situation just as much as I am.

Correct. But your example is also the normal, rational thinking side of this issue. Unfortunately, some posters are not really thinking rationally about it. But when it comes down to choosing whether or not to compromise, the low libido spouse holds the control. Well unless high libido spouse resorts to raping I suppose. But if low libido refuses to compromise at all, they do have the most control. If high libido refuses to compromise, well they are just being stupid since that means nothing changes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not sure what thread people are reading, but this discussion has been almost entirely about how the spouse with less interest should be more accommodating.

That could well be a function of the fact that the low drive spouse has the most direct control over the sex life. The entire period the high drive spouse wants sex but isn't having it is, in effect, an accommodation.

That's fine. Both sides should be accommodating. But, the fact is, the low drive spouse is in a position to ignore the accommodation of the high drive spouse and pretend like s/he isn't giving anything up by not having sex.

This is not always the case. Let's say I want sex once a month and my partner wants it every other day. If we compromise at once a week, he is controlling the situation just as much as I am.

Not really because the compromise is still far in your favor. You wanted it once a month, he wanted it 15 times a month, you compromised at 4 time a month. Still much closer to what you wanted than to what he wanted.

High libido spouse here. Before DH got his medical condition figured out and was only up for it once a month whereas I was up for it every day/every other day, I would have happily compromised at 4 times a month. And let's face it. Low libido spouse is likely going to have it a little favored towards them if the reason for their low libido is stress, tired, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not sure what thread people are reading, but this discussion has been almost entirely about how the spouse with less interest should be more accommodating.

That could well be a function of the fact that the low drive spouse has the most direct control over the sex life. The entire period the high drive spouse wants sex but isn't having it is, in effect, an accommodation.

That's fine. Both sides should be accommodating. But, the fact is, the low drive spouse is in a position to ignore the accommodation of the high drive spouse and pretend like s/he isn't giving anything up by not having sex.

This is not always the case. Let's say I want sex once a month and my partner wants it every other day. If we compromise at once a week, he is controlling the situation just as much as I am.

Not really because the compromise is still far in your favor. You wanted it once a month, he wanted it 15 times a month, you compromised at 4 time a month. Still much closer to what you wanted than to what he wanted.

Fair enough, but the point still stands. In a true compromise, the partners meet halfway, which means each is giving something up. The wife (or whomever has the lower libido) is giving up just as much control as the husband.