Anonymous wrote:This was me - met DH at 19, married at 21, my only sexual relationship.

Early 30's I started feeling I was really missing something, and lo and behold someone at work began to pursue me. The affair was pretty short, because it helped me realize there wasn't magical mindblowing sex and DH and I were actually pretty damn good at it. Haven't been tempted since. Well, once, but I thought better of it.

Of course YMMV.

You should let your husband do the same, so he's sure he's not missing out. She

No real advice for you, OP, but I will give you the perspective of someone who got married later and had sex with a dozen or so women (long term, short term and ONS).

Where you are now is where most married people end up. I don't want to minimize your feelings - it is easier to end up here knowing I have BTDT and have some great memories to reach for. But most married people aren't having great, passionate sex once the kids come. Even those of us like my wife and I who had great passionate sex pre kids.

So you can mourn what is past and it's understandable. But make decisions on what lies ahead. You can leave your decent husband and you might find passion (although its slim pickins in the divorced people dating scene) and eventually you will likely end up sexually bored with the next person while juggling split custody.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I got married young as well, OP.

I think something important is to accept your SO's shortcomings and move on. If he didn't have a good sense of humor when you got married, it's not fair to expect that of him now. He is a person, with his own needs, thoughts, and feelings. He doesn't exist purely for your fulfillment. There is no perfect person out there.

Op here--he actually used to be a lot more social and had a great sense of humor. Kids were rough for us and he lost a lot of that. He doesn't like most people and complains if I make plans for us with others or even on my own... He has a temper that flares easily.

Again, you made a vow to this person, in sickness and in health. No, it's not nice that he has changed for the worse. But be honest with yourself, have you become a better person over the years? He's YOUR humorless introvert, so you have to at least accept it for the time being. We all change over the course of our marriages. I don't love everything about DH (he is short-tempered, leaves me with all the decision-making, refuses to read anything ever), but he is my rock. I know that I can be lazy and grumpy and tired and he will still love me. That is the point of marriage.

This. My husband can be a braggart, is lazy in bed and has horrible parents. I didn't fully realize this until after we married. But am I going to leave him? No. I made a promise. I also fully realize I'm far from perfect myself.

If you were interested in a relationship where you can trade up you shouldn't have married. You should have just lived together and not had kids.

Sure, this is easy enough to say in perfect land. But sometimes the young 20s brain doesn't make the best decisions. And there is one life.

Anonymous wrote:This is why I used to be so against undergraduate coeducation. Undergraduate coeducation tends to lead to exclusive one on one relationships too early. It's hard to date multiple women at the same college. So you end up dating one person who may not be the best person for you. She probably isn't. If she is, it's like winning the lottery. So you end up marrying the wrong person. At a single sex college on the other hand, you can have your Smith College woman, your Holyoke College woman, your Wheaton College woman (Wheaton was still all female at the time), your Wellesley woman, etc. That way, you could see what kind of woman was the best match for you. I married my Smith College woman, and couldn't be happier.

You're obnoxious.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I got married young as well, OP.

I think something important is to accept your SO's shortcomings and move on. If he didn't have a good sense of humor when you got married, it's not fair to expect that of him now. He is a person, with his own needs, thoughts, and feelings. He doesn't exist purely for your fulfillment. There is no perfect person out there.

Op here--he actually used to be a lot more social and had a great sense of humor. Kids were rough for us and he lost a lot of that. He doesn't like most people and complains if I make plans for us with others or even on my own... He has a temper that flares easily.

Again, you made a vow to this person, in sickness and in health. No, it's not nice that he has changed for the worse. But be honest with yourself, have you become a better person over the years? He's YOUR humorless introvert, so you have to at least accept it for the time being. We all change over the course of our marriages. I don't love everything about DH (he is short-tempered, leaves me with all the decision-making, refuses to read anything ever), but he is my rock. I know that I can be lazy and grumpy and tired and he will still love me. That is the point of marriage.

This. My husband can be a braggart, is lazy in bed and has horrible parents. I didn't fully realize this until after we married. But am I going to leave him? No. I made a promise. I also fully realize I'm far from perfect myself.

If you were interested in a relationship where you can trade up you shouldn't have married. You should have just lived together and not had kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I got married young as well, OP.

I think something important is to accept your SO's shortcomings and move on. If he didn't have a good sense of humor when you got married, it's not fair to expect that of him now. He is a person, with his own needs, thoughts, and feelings. He doesn't exist purely for your fulfillment. There is no perfect person out there.

Op here--he actually used to be a lot more social and had a great sense of humor. Kids were rough for us and he lost a lot of that. He doesn't like most people and complains if I make plans for us with others or even on my own... He has a temper that flares easily.

Again, you made a vow to this person, in sickness and in health. No, it's not nice that he has changed for the worse. But be honest with yourself, have you become a better person over the years? He's YOUR humorless introvert, so you have to at least accept it for the time being. We all change over the course of our marriages. I don't love everything about DH (he is short-tempered, leaves me with all the decision-making, refuses to read anything ever), but he is my rock. I know that I can be lazy and grumpy and tired and he will still love me. That is the point of marriage.

Anonymous wrote:This was me - met DH at 19, married at 21, my only sexual relationship.

Early 30's I started feeling I was really missing something, and lo and behold someone at work began to pursue me. The affair was pretty short, because it helped me realize there wasn't magical mindblowing sex and DH and I were actually pretty damn good at it. Haven't been tempted since. Well, once, but I thought better of it.

Of course YMMV.

So if it was mindblowing, you would have torpedoed your DH and the marriage? Nice.

Anonymous wrote:^^and i only adk because i went to umass amherst and holyoke and smith were the lesbian mecca.

I know that's the case now. It was completely different in the 1970s.

^^and i only adk because i went to umass amherst and holyoke and smith were the lesbian mecca.

Anonymous wrote:This is why I used to be so against undergraduate coeducation. Undergraduate coeducation tends to lead to exclusive one on one relationships too early. It's hard to date multiple women at the same college. So you end up dating one person who may not be the best person for you. She probably isn't. If she is, it's like winning the lottery. So you end up marrying the wrong person. At a single sex college on the other hand, you can have your Smith College woman, your Holyoke College woman, your Wheaton College woman (Wheaton was still all female at the time), your Wellesley woman, etc. That way, you could see what kind of woman was the best match for you. I married my Smith College woman, and couldn't be happier.

Is she a lesbian?

Doesn't matter when you meet and marry your spouse. Kids will suck the passion out of a relationship. All anyone can hope is thatbit bounces back.

You know why people love affairs? Because there is no pressure, no stress, no hardship. Its all fun and no work.

With all the complaints about dating on this forum, who in the world would have wanted to do more of it?

OP, it could be a lot of the issues raised by PPs, but for sure it is at least the "young children" one. Assuming that one is for sure one factor, it muddles everything else up so you won't know if there are other factors involved that are insurmountable.

So, just try and get through the young children years. A little bit after the last enters school full-time, you will enter a sweet spot with kids, so then you can sort out the other stuff. (Then there is another tough time with late tween or teens, but in between you have time to repair/shore up the spousal relationship.)

This is why I used to be so against undergraduate coeducation. Undergraduate coeducation tends to lead to exclusive one on one relationships too early. It's hard to date multiple women at the same college. So you end up dating one person who may not be the best person for you. She probably isn't. If she is, it's like winning the lottery. So you end up marrying the wrong person. At a single sex college on the other hand, you can have your Smith College woman, your Holyoke College woman, your Wheaton College woman (Wheaton was still all female at the time), your Wellesley woman, etc. That way, you could see what kind of woman was the best match for you. I married my Smith College woman, and couldn't be happier.

Is it better stay and deal for the sake of the kids or is it worth it to consider separate life? For what it's worth, not sure our ideal jobs would keep us in same city which would be harder I know.