Anonymous wrote:OP again.
I just read this post in another thread:
Doesn't attraction fade over time? I see all the threads of women saying they don't want to have sex with their husbands after a decade or more despite being attracted to them at one point. My DH is attractive but I have zero desire for sex. I would rather be married to someone kind and a good partner at this stage since the sexual part leaves the marriage for most couples over time.
This thinking is SO ubiquitous! I, too, used that line about my H being attractive. He was, objectively. But what I didn't have enough experience to understand back then is that that didn't mean I was attracted to him. But I didn't think there was anything better or more fulfilling out there for me because this refrain of "marry your best friend!" is drilled into us.
Doesn't attraction fade over time? I see all the threads of women saying they don't want to have sex with their husbands after a decade or more despite being attracted to them at one point. My DH is attractive but I have zero desire for sex. I would rather be married to someone kind and a good partner at this stage since the sexual part leaves the marriage for most couples over time.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Are there any surprises to any of the answers here?
I agree with another poster who said that married friendship is different than friendships with others who are not your spouse. I also believe sex can wax and wane over time but the shared history and marriage friendship/intimacy is important. I know this isn’t the common response but I do believe it to be true for many marriages (especially non DCUM ones). Not looking to challenge anyone. Just my belief.
+1. For me, the defining characteristic of what I believe is a much, much stronger marriage than most of my (DC typical) friends is the level of intimate, deep connection via friendship with my husband. No other friendship could come anywhere close.
Anonymous wrote:For people who have experienced both types of relationships (physical chemistry driven versus friendship driven), which type would you consider more successful or which did you prefer?
I feel like the common refrain is "the physical side fades, so you need a solid friendship to sustain a marriage long term." For me, I think the opposite has been true.
First husband and I got along great, loved talking and hanging out together, never fought -- but also almost never had sex, and that was a dark cloud over our entire marriage.
My 8-year relationship with my current boyfriend has been very different. It started with lust, and I didn't care that we had little in common because I just thought it would be a short fling. But we never fell out of lust. We also fight much more than my ex-H and I did. We resolve our fights, but it's a bit tumultuous compared to my ex. But damn, the sex tho. It has been a salve that has gotten us through so many hard times.
I'm not suggesting physical chemistry could overcome abuse or mistreatment or intellectual unfulfillment. But assuming a baseline level of compatibility in any relationship, for me, physical chemistry has been more healing and restorative of the woes in this relationship than a deep friendship was in my old relationship.
Same for anyone else?
Anonymous wrote:I don't know the answer because I don't think there is one answer, but I will say this:
My marriage is currently in a very dry period with regards to sex, for two reasons (1) I am working through PTSD from sexual assault that was triggered when I had my DC, and (2) we have a child under the age of 5. I guess also (3) Covid.
Were it not for our friendship, this would be impossible. It's hard anyway, but obviously since we are really not having sex right now, there would just be no way to sustain our marriage without the friendship piece. Even with the love. Romantic love is great and we have that too, but it doesn't get you through the really tough stuff. For that, you really need a deep emotional bond, which we have. Also intense loyalty and commitment.
I have every reason to believe our sex life will come back given the effort we are both putting in right now. But I know I'm not the first person to go through something like this (i.e. having absolutely no interest in sex due to trauma), and I think if your marriage does not have an emotional component that can survive even without sex, then it's going to be harder to go the distance. Because while some people manage to maintain sex at a steady level for 40-50 years, the vast majority don't. Kids, stress, grief, aging, menopause... odds are very good you will hit a dry spell or three or five. I don't know how people who don't have the friendship component survive that, and my suspicion is that by and large they don't, and that leads to divorce withs one frequency.
Sometimes I laugh a bit when people on here say "our bedroom is dead" because I feel like it's so self-defeating. It's dead if you say it is. My husband and I haven't had sex in months, but we are still intimate and loving, and importantly, we are both working towards a time when we can have sex again. Our bedroom isn't dead it's just on pause. But practically speaking, we are having no more sex than some of the people talking about this issue as though it's the end of everything. The friendship piece is the difference.
Anonymous wrote:Are there any surprises to any of the answers here?
I agree with another poster who said that married friendship is different than friendships with others who are not your spouse. I also believe sex can wax and wane over time but the shared history and marriage friendship/intimacy is important. I know this isn’t the common response but I do believe it to be true for many marriages (especially non DCUM ones). Not looking to challenge anyone. Just my belief.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Sex. Was married 17 years yo my best friend in the world. We never argued, could finish each other's sentences, tackled everything as a team. Sex life declined after kids, but we still were doing it about once a week. So not amazing, but not sexless.
He ended up having an affair with his extremely homely, frumpy secretary. She was infatuated with him and I think in the end he craved that power imbalance, the feeling like a masculine hero to a needy damsel who literally had to ask him permission to take lunch.
He was a pretty passive guy for the most part, and I think that thrilled him.
This analysis sounds so spot on.
It's a great example of how, in general, the sexes are different. The post above talking about friendship being most important is someone who will be blindsided by cheating. Men primarily feel love through sex. If that's not a priority in the relationship, it has a shelf life and his eye and heart will be open to another