Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As far as I'm concerned, a "low drive spouse" is a FAULT in a divorce.

I'd say a "Low drive spouse not willing to try and increase their drive" is a fault.

Yes, that's a fair fix to the statement.

Sigh. That's why I studied acting in college. I'm just hanging out, waiting for my husband to die, so I never have to suck another dick, ever again.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As far as I'm concerned, a "low drive spouse" is a FAULT in a divorce.

I'd say a "Low drive spouse not willing to try and increase their drive" is a fault.

Yes, that's a fair fix to the statement.

Saying so doesn't make it so.

I'd say that a high drive spouse who is obsessed with sucking and fucking like he/she is 20, when he/she is really 40, is a pervert and a freak who should be engaged in more productive adult past times. That doesn't make it so, though.

Pissing away your marriage with all of the financial issues and kid issues involved is not the best idea. Doing it because you are trying to recapture the sex life you had in your 20s is folly.

Anonymous wrote:As far as I'm concerned, a "low drive spouse" is a FAULT in a divorce.

I'd say a "Low drive spouse not willing to try and increase their drive" is a fault.

As far as I'm concerned, a "low drive spouse" is a FAULT in a divorce.

I agree that leaving is the *only* option for those that want a happy sex life.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You don't deserve to have your "emotional needs" respected because you don't have respect for your partner. Being required to have sex when you don't want to because the other partner is having an emotional meltdown about it and is throwing a temper tantrum isn't respectful of your low drive partner's needs.

If you can't come to compromise, then you are better off divorced and so is your partner.

As for me, I've been married 23 years in a marriage that ended up with very mismatched sex drives after the kids got here. We compromised and found a way to keep it together, with everyone putting in an effort to make it work.

Compromise means the low drive partner making effort to have sex more frequently while the high drive partner accepts less frequent encounters.

Your other posts indicate you see "compromise" as the high drive partner accepting the status quo

The thing that low drive spouses don't seem to fully grasp is that it's not just about quantity, it's about quality. My H can perform physically, but I can tell he's not into it. I can give myself physical pleasure (in less time, to boot!). I want a partner who desires me and not just the sex. Tries new things. Enjoys the whole experience. That qualitative difference is hard to compromise on when one person just wants it to be over so he can watch TV or go to sleep.

Yes. This. x1000.
The low drive spouse believes the high drive spouse should be grateful. Grateful for what? The "ok, I guess it's time to have sex now" romp?
Is that low drive spouse going to go all out and tease and play and lick and suck? Very fucking unlikely. Who wants that? "Duty intercourse." Fuck that.

Here's the crux of it. You are asking for something that the low drive spouse can't deliver. You can accept that or leave, but complaining at the low drive spouse about it isn't going to change the fact that they're not into it. The conflict just makes it worse.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You don't deserve to have your "emotional needs" respected because you don't have respect for your partner. Being required to have sex when you don't want to because the other partner is having an emotional meltdown about it and is throwing a temper tantrum isn't respectful of your low drive partner's needs.

If you can't come to compromise, then you are better off divorced and so is your partner.

As for me, I've been married 23 years in a marriage that ended up with very mismatched sex drives after the kids got here. We compromised and found a way to keep it together, with everyone putting in an effort to make it work.

Compromise means the low drive partner making effort to have sex more frequently while the high drive partner accepts less frequent encounters.

Your other posts indicate you see "compromise" as the high drive partner accepting the status quo

The thing that low drive spouses don't seem to fully grasp is that it's not just about quantity, it's about quality. My H can perform physically, but I can tell he's not into it. I can give myself physical pleasure (in less time, to boot!). I want a partner who desires me and not just the sex. Tries new things. Enjoys the whole experience. That qualitative difference is hard to compromise on when one person just wants it to be over so he can watch TV or go to sleep.

Yes. This. x1000.
The low drive spouse believes the high drive spouse should be grateful. Grateful for what? The "ok, I guess it's time to have sex now" romp?
Is that low drive spouse going to go all out and tease and play and lick and suck? Very fucking unlikely. Who wants that? "Duty intercourse." Fuck that.

I'd like to point out that I had anal sex with my wife 4 times this week alone, and the OP thinks once a week of regular, PIV sex is enough "in fact, it's too much, every time he wants to get down... Get down... Get down make love."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Spouses that are unwilling to put out for their partners don't deserve fidelity. Be honest about it, tell them that as far as you are concerned the marriage is open, then go out there and find someone like yourself stuck in a sexless marriage. Your marriage vows are not a vow of chastity.

This is what I did (woman here). H would never admit it because it's not manly but I think he was and is a tiny bit relieved. I don't take advantage of the open marriage very often but it really reduces the tension at home. Some men over 50 simply don't desire regular sex.

Some men over 50 can't get it up.

Maybe, but that's not the problem here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You don't deserve to have your "emotional needs" respected because you don't have respect for your partner. Being required to have sex when you don't want to because the other partner is having an emotional meltdown about it and is throwing a temper tantrum isn't respectful of your low drive partner's needs.

If you can't come to compromise, then you are better off divorced and so is your partner.

As for me, I've been married 23 years in a marriage that ended up with very mismatched sex drives after the kids got here. We compromised and found a way to keep it together, with everyone putting in an effort to make it work.

Compromise means the low drive partner making effort to have sex more frequently while the high drive partner accepts less frequent encounters.

Your other posts indicate you see "compromise" as the high drive partner accepting the status quo

The thing that low drive spouses don't seem to fully grasp is that it's not just about quantity, it's about quality. My H can perform physically, but I can tell he's not into it. I can give myself physical pleasure (in less time, to boot!). I want a partner who desires me and not just the sex. Tries new things. Enjoys the whole experience. That qualitative difference is hard to compromise on when one person just wants it to be over so he can watch TV or go to sleep.

You've got to look at sex as a basic appetite.

Marriage is like a long road trip. If one partner says, "Honey I'm starving!" and the other partner isn't hungry, because maybe they're a light eater or carsick, that doesn't mean the hungry one should starve. They either stop and go have a meal together, even if the not-hungry partner just sits and keeps the other company, or the hungry one has a sandwich as they drive, but at no point is it okay for one to tell the other, "Sorry, you can't eat because I am not hungry."

My partner and I try to accommodate each other. We're well matched, but if one totally isn't in the mood to have anything to do with the other and one is too horny to wait, we're comfortable masturbating in front of each other. During the little-kid years, this happened more than we liked, but we got through it and now have more energy. And somehow, seeing your partner enjoying pleasure without any pressure on you, but with you welcome to join in, is freeing, and often leads to mutual fun.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So many low sex drive people suggest that sex is a want, not a need.

In that same respect, if you're well provided for (home, food, transpiration, etc.), then any extra money is a want, not a need.

Funny how the WANT of money gets people going, but the WANT of sex is thrown aside.

Low drive people need to just couple with each other. Fucking wastes.

I don't disagree with that. If the low drive partner wants more money, he/she should get out there and earn it.

If you want more sex, you should earn it or get out there and find it from someone who will give it to you.

Oh I agree. H thinks three or four times a month is sufficient to satisfy his marital obligations. With no touching, sexual or otherwise, the rest of the month. No romance, no gifts, no dates, no flowers. That doesn't satisfy me, so I got out there and found someone who will fill in the gaps.

I think the PP is a fine example of someone who just cannot accept that it's a serious problem or is hurtful to the rejected partner. Instead, she seems to think feeling that way is a mental health issue.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You don't deserve to have your "emotional needs" respected because you don't have respect for your partner. Being required to have sex when you don't want to because the other partner is having an emotional meltdown about it and is throwing a temper tantrum isn't respectful of your low drive partner's needs.

If you can't come to compromise, then you are better off divorced and so is your partner.

As for me, I've been married 23 years in a marriage that ended up with very mismatched sex drives after the kids got here. We compromised and found a way to keep it together, with everyone putting in an effort to make it work.

First of all, your perpetually dismissive characterization of a spouse trying to get their sexual needs met as being childish (e.g. "whiny," "temper tantrum") reflects a huge blind spot. Because your sex drive disappeared, you seem to regard the needs of others in that respect as something trivial and foolish rather than a substantial and intrinsic part of the human experience - like a blind person sneering at art as so much doodling by people who really ought to be doing something more productive.

Secondly, your statement that your drives became mismatched after the children suggests that the lowering of your drive was the change in the sexual status quo. I don't know you and I'm obviously speculating, but it looks like your attitude about the sex drives of others may be sour grapes and/or an attempt to minimize your appreciation of how much pain the change in the status quo might be inflicting on your husband.

Compromising isn't a bad thing -- it might be the only alternative to divorce. Nobody can be blamed for their base line sex drive, only the effort they put into matching their drive to their spouses. But, if you regard the need for sex as childish, how motivated can you be to put forth that effort?

One of the best posts ever deposited in DCUM, IMO, of course. It is a lot easier to be dismissive of those things not important to us, and minimize the importance to the spouse. There are hundreds of these conflicts every day, but most of them are on a small scale. Sex, intimacy, and affection is a huge deal, though. Hard to accept that if you're the spouse being told your needs are childish and unimportant.

You know what's really hard? Having your high drive partner tell you that you are defective because you don't want sex daily? Y'all are quick to say that I have contempt for my partner, but I have never identified his sexual style as defective. Meanwhile, y'all have labeled low drive people as the problem (rather than the mismatch as the problem) over and over again on this thread.

I never said that the need for sex is childish or having a high drive is childish. The amount of contempt exhibited on this thread for low drive partners is extremely childish, however. No wonder so many of you are divorced. Your attitude towards your partner prevented you from finding a compromise.

You are right that the problem is the mismatch. I think, though, the most posters who are in sexually unfulfilling relationships feel like their partners are not willing or able to find solutions or compromises, or really even acknowledge the issue. (The latter is by far the most destructive, in my opinion.) My sense is that the contempt of the posters stems more from their frustration than from actual contempt. My *guess* is that many of them have tried, in their own ways, to address this mismatch. Each situation is unique, but there seems to be some commonality in outcome.