"Hail Mary". The last second, desperation heave is called a "Hail Mary" pass.

Hallelujah pass? I think the term you're looking for is "Hail Mary".

...and NIB should throw it.

"...and who—ohmygod—I actually TOLD was bad in bed during a heated fight....I am a healthy, attractive, pleasant"

juxtaposition irony fail.

5

ack! followed by closing tag fail! sorry sorry sorry

This one's easy.

Put your name on the Craigslist Adult services section (or whatever has replaced it).

Your husband will enjoy the rest and the extra money.

There are a ton of fish in the sea. If you stay married and faithful, you will end up resenting the hell out of him. So much for "true love". If you can be happy with getting your sexual needs filled from somebody other than your husband, and if he is willing to be honest and give you a pass, give it a try. If you don't like "cheating", then get the hell out, and go find a more compatable mate. Dan is right on. Listen to him.

@4: I don't think her freakout in a moment of frustration means she's not a pleasant person. If I'd had to put up with ten years of shitty sex, I'd probably be a lot ruder by the end of it. I think her level of restraint seems commendable.

Also, Dan, you mean "discreetly", unless you're advising NIB to get her sexual needs met in distinct and quantifiable units.

My only comment is that Dan is likely right.

But, many people marry when things aren't good, thinking/hoping that it will change or get better. If you haven't talked about issues before you marry well, then it is harder AFTER you marry.

You know what's missing here? HIS reaction. What did he say when NIB told him he was bad in bed? How does he react when NIB expresses her frustration?

It's doubtful that they can fix things...but we'd know better with the answers to those questions.

This isn't a teach-an-old-dog-new-tricks problem. This is an old-dog-doesn't-want-to-play problem. The former is possible to correct, the latter is untenable. As for Option 2, spouses who are open to non-monogamy usually don't have to know that their partner is perfectly capable of monogamy- just not with their awful-in-bed asses. I think that's a wrap and that sucks- but miserable-for-life sucks worse.

She's may be a perfectly lovely and reasonable person 99% of the time, but once arguments devolve into saying things purely meant to hurt the other person—there couldn't be a bigger sign the relationship needs to end.

Ok, and maybe the dude is somehow unequivocally awful, but Dan's right to reframe this as a sexual compatibility issue, not "bad vs. good" in bed. Sex isn't a competition, and harboring feelings that your partner is "bad" at it (as opposed to "incompatible with you") can only manifest in ways that are probably belittling and admonishing, which only make the problem worse.

I wish I could get my hands on Dan's magic beans, IHHS*.

*If he had some.

Do the kids really say that?

What @10 said.

Maybe the stuff she wants to do doesn't turn him on? Has she asked him if there's some kink or something that gets him excited? I would assume she's already asked him, but if not, that should be her very first step.

Often, when men are looking for an open marriage, they don't want to start an emotional relationship with someone else. They know that will freak out their spouse, and it's not worth it to them. But, here, I suspect that NIB may be happier if allowed to be fully polyamorous: have an acknowledged other intimate relationship where she can see her boyfriend or girlfriend openly, hold hands in public, all that. I think she should give her husband reading material on polyamory, and see if he might be able to handle it.

Dan, could you reformat your answer so that your honest and dishonest work-arounds don't look like the same choice? That leads to people like SeattleKim@7 calling the honest open marriage "cheating" (she put it in quotes, but still...)

@13: Yep. And telling someone "Well, you are bad in bed" in the middle of a heated fight -- and for some reason I got the impression this particular fight wasn't convened around the topic of solving their sex problems -- is a cheap shot, designed to land a hurtful blow.

People who resort to cheap shots in fights lose some of their credibility when they claim to be nice people.

Oh, also, there's another option. Cut him off from sex. Then, in my view at least, you can go have whatever sex you want with other people without confessing to him.

This is sad. Life is often sad. There's no right answer, no fix that will work perfectly. No matter what she does, she will occasionally wonder if she made the right choice.

@19: I get it, you aren't putting him in any danger -- it's impossible to give an STD to someone you never ever fuck -- so you don't owe him the same level of care as if he was an active sexual partner. However that option works only up to the point where he expresses desire, at which point you owe your spouse an explanation as to why the door is barred to him. For this guy, that might well be never, but hypothetically, there are limitations to that approach.

There are other risks involved, by the way, such as coming home pregnant, or getting the outside partner pregnant, risks that do come home to roost within the marriage, so that tends to disqualify this as being much better than straight up cheating.

This is a perfect example of what I hate about the concept of "morality." Morality, to me, is somebody telling me how to live my life according to his/her arbitrary code. For instance, monogamy is considered the "moral" thing to do, each and every time, and that rigid inflexibility doesn't allow for the fact that circumstances vary, a lot. Instead of adhering to some particular set of rules that we have to learn, just because, I believe we should just worry about some derivation of the Golden Rule: Be honest and true and do right by others. Be generous. Be patient. Be forgiving. Not stupid crap like the Ten Commandments or the Seven Deadly Sins. Sometimes there's nothing wrong with sex on the side if the other partner is okay with it and it's all done with the best intentions.

But then again, I feel like I'm preaching to the choir here.

I had a good chuckle with the hallujah pass. I'm imagening football players raising their arms to the heavens and shouting "Hallelujah!" as soon as the quarterback throws the pass. Maybe the fans and the radio announcers could join in the chant.

More likely, players as well as fans everywhere may should "Hallelujah!" to themselves if and when the pass is caught in the endzone.

Ms Erica - There's a certain sense of justice to your proposition in #17. One could say with some force behind the assertion that she has put up with enough misery that it's a fair ask or even that it would be a reasonable ultimatum if he's pushed her to such a point.

Yet somehow it feels like telling a first-year French class that they're going to be expected to read Proust.

Also: I am curious about whether the proportion of straight LWs is higher than average for Mr Savage's most common letters. My instinct would be that it is, as I imagine that quite a lot of straight people think Mr Savage really does have magic beans - because, with sufficient cross-examination, one can get at their belief that non-heterosexuals have no higher calling in life than to guard the Magic Beans and dole them out to deserving ( = straight ) couples and individuals.

And as it seems reasonably safe to presume that nobody here would write Mr Savage a Magic Beans letter, I hope that nobody needs me to point out that This Comment Is NOT ABOUT YOU, but I am being explicit just in case.

"there's another option. Cut him off from sex. Then, in my view at least, you can go have whatever sex you want with other people without confessing to him."

Well, isn't that passive-aggressive.

avast@21, since she's a woman, she's not going to get anyone else pregnant, and if she's prepared to have an abortion, then that's not a problem either. You're right to point out that she has to figure out how she'll deal with the possibility that he wants to have sex with her someday. But she could simply say, "oh, I figured we were done with that. Feel free to make other arrangements if you like."

Mr. Savage forgot one more option: The husband puts in more effort and the wife accepts that he's not perfect. It's one thing to not want to have sex but it's quite another to ignore the partner's sexual needs. There are feelings and then there are actions.

This woman isn't miserable because her husband has a low libido. She's miserable because her husband has a low libido AND isn't willing to do the work to satisfy hers.

This "either you will be TOTALLY MISERABLE adhering to your marriage vows or you MUST be non-monogamous" BS is ticking me off. There's middle ground here. There are other things they can try before they resort to such a dangerous and morally problematic option.

I'm not a football fan, but I seem to remember there was some amazing pass done by Tebow in a Denver game that sportswriters were trying give a catchy name. Hallelujah Pass was one of the options.

Maybe Dan was remembering that?

Then again, I'm not a football fan, so goodness knows where I came up with all this. Google was no help -- so I guess naming that pass didn't take.

@28

I'm a huge football fan and I don't know anything about some magical "Hallelujah" Tim Tebow pass.

Dan is trying to say "Hail Mary". The context fits. A Hail Mary pass is a desperation heave into the end zone to try to win the game as the final seconds of the clock run out.

@27- Trying to raise a mate's libido to your level is a fool's errand. Imagine yourself trying to want more of something you don't want in the first place.
Differing libidos are always lowered to the lower one's eventually. She's just lucky she's only got 10 years into this and no children.
I've got a 42yo brother who'd love to date NIB, but then she'd be the low-libido'd one, whining about incessant demands for sex.

@EricaP 26.

isn't 'But she could simply say, "oh, I figured we were done with that. Feel free to make other arrangements if you like."' being rather unilateral?

Why can't she just say "I am not being sexually fulfilled, do you want to fix this or would you rather I go elsewhere?" they seem reasonable options which should be presented before the act.

Dan is wrong. Two options? GFYS. Is she jerking off? Asking to explore new styles? Trying other aphrodisiacs ( compliments, enthusiasm, exercise) rather than bona fide boner crushers like criticism? What about his needs? I bet he could use some sex where his performance isn't posted ON THE FUCKING INTERNET YOU CUNTY SHIT.

This should be required reading before anyone gets married. You can't - and wouldn't want to - make someone have sex with you that they don't want to have.

@32:
Touchy subject for you?
Or why do you resort to screaming insults at the LW?

I'm sorry, I missed the option: talk to eachother about it. Something's wrong if the only moment you had an honest conversation about what you like and dislike in bed (ie what you're doing doesn't do it for me) is in an attempt to hurt him during a flaming row. Try talking. Ask him what he does and doesn't like, maybe you can get him interested in a threeway, or add some power-play, or ask him whether he would be willing to use a vibrator on you. You never know, in some situations communication is useful. If you are reluctant to ask for what you want, how do you expect him to know/understand that you desire this so much?
Maybe this sexlife cannot be saved/rekindled/kickstarted, but how about trying to see how HE feels before divorcing/cheating/looking for a piece on the side/settling for sexlessness?

@22: morals are the rules we live by, for ourselves. Ethics are the rules that govern how we treat other people.

The real problem arises when (self righteous) people conflate the two, and don't even realize they're doing it.

@24: I think you're getting at something interesting, but if I may it's not necessarily about non-heterosexuals guarding the beans. It's more a case of believing that the outsider "other" has access to secret or arcane knowledge, and/or has moral authority precisely because they have withstood the worst of what "respectable" society has hurled at them.

Those who are hurting will seek out teachers. If "respectable" society has little to offer, it's a natural impulse to start a quest for knowledge by breaking free of the suffocating strictures of respectibility. That's what coming out is all about, BTW. Because we (gay men in this case) have already been through this process and survived it, those others - not necessarily gays - naturally will see us as teachers and guides.

That's the secret of Dan's success as an advice columnist. It's not necessarily that he gives good advice; it's the "Hey Faggot" thing he used to open letters with.

And I may add, that reclaiming the label is part of the parlor trick ("Queer Eye for the Straight Guy").

@32: Here's the thing: if he wanted to have more/better sex, he would be trying to have more sex with her than he is. Notice that she is not so turned off by his bad sex that she doesn't want to have sex with him. She wants to have more sex, and she wants to improve any sex they have. If he wanted more sex, he could get it, and it's pretty clear that she's desperate.

@Mr. Ven (24): I think the letters written by straights may well outnumber the letters written by gays or bis, if only because that would be representative of the proportional breakdown of the population.

As for straights thinking Dan has magic beans because he's gay, I think it's more a matter of frustrated people thinking an advice columnist has magic beans because he/she is an advice columnist. There are a lot of straight people wanting magic solutions from straight advice columnists, too.

But given that there is a sense that an outsider can see our problems and potential solutions more clearly than we can, and to the extent that Dan, as a gay man, is "outside" the condition of straightness, people may think he's in a better position to help because of his gayness. Although it seems to me that Dan's being gay has very little bearing on how he sees problems relating to essential incompatibility. Or that there is a significant difference between this particular kind of problem when it is experienced by gay people or straight people.

@31, yes, I agree that the first step should be talking about trying to improve their sex life. I think Urgutha Forka @16 got it right, saying that she should do her best to find out if there's any way to get him more interested in sex through kink. But for people who refuse divorce, therapy, and open-marriage, and have given up on improving their marital sex life, I think cheating becomes less unethical if you aren't going to pass along any STIs.

@24: "I imagine that quite a lot of straight people think Mr Savage really does have magic beans - because, with sufficient cross-examination, one can get at their belief that non-heterosexuals have no higher calling in life than to guard the Magic Beans and dole them out to deserving ( = straight ) couples and individuals."

I really don't think he's considered a magic token in the same way as a stereotypical "gay bestie confidant" might. People put their faith in advice columnists to have insight they don't, from experience, perspective, often from no rational reason whatsoever (mostly regarding the terrible columnists.)

Why the fuck isn't there a new Morning News post on Slog yet?

@43 You may have heard: Seattle isn't overcast and dreary today. It's a holiday!!!

@ 44, well, go out and celebrate! I'm going to be gardening today, myself.

@45 News was posted.
You have added no comments.

Are you waiting for Sarge Doom to go first?

@47, are my comments necessary? I just wanted a diary to read. (Ian Asshole commented, so I'll consider it an adequate substitution for the sarge's rambling.)

Breaking one of the top ten taboos found in The Great Book Of All Things Queer, Chapter one, page 53 which reads, "Thou Shalt Not Reveal The Magic Beans To Breeders".... Yes, there are among us ones who are Wise and are entrusted with magical sex beans. They are forbidden from revealing the Powers contained therein until complete and total equality exists between the sexual preferences. Until such time as equality comes universal the very existence of said beans are not to be acknowledged. Wise One Dan is keeping his vow and I salute him for it.

Good gosh, Dan. You give up too easily. This husband deserves a shot at being 'positively' coached at sex. Evaluating sex during a heated argument can be counter-productive so she (NIB) owes it to her husband to give POSITIVE sex coaching a real effort.

NIB: Perhaps finding your local certified sex therapist should be a possible intermediate step before you go into Dan's routes. If your husband doesn't want to deal with getting help, then you clearly are on your own.

Being stuck in the current economy doesn't help. Being in a (presumably) finically stable situation makes wanting, and getting, a change that much more difficult to justify. Getting therapy, even from more than one source, is probably cheaper than making a mutually uninformed decision.

Peace

I see no evidence at all in this letter that he actually has a low sex drive. If I were married to someone who treated me like she has him, I wouldn't want to have sex with them either. (Even if I were desperate for sex, I wouldn't want to have sex with THEM.) Nor would I want them to be aware of how often I masturbated. Just because she perceives him as having a low sex drive does not mean that's true.

If you have confidence in your sexual ability then someone telling you, in the heat of an argument, that you suck in bed, isn't going to be a big deal. But it's obvious that that's how she really feels, and I bet when she said that he connected a lot of dots that he had previously been carefully ignoring and realized that however good in bed he is for anyone else, he had been a failure in bed for his wife of several years (and not even realized it!)

She talks about "loving him", but her letter is all about her, her, her. Just because thinking about someone gives you warm fuzzy feelings does not mean you are treating them well. She relates no actions she's taken that display concern for his well being.

He should DTMFA. If he can't bring himself to do that, she should let him go.

If she really wants to try to repair this train wreck, she should start by stopping thinking about her wants and start working on rebuilding his trust in her, which was likely totaled when she let it slip that she had only contempt for his performance in bed, but that she would only be honest to him about his performance in bed when she was too angry to think straight.

If he ever comes to trust her again, then they can start working on improving the sex.

Ms Cute - I thought I should have rephrased that bit along the lines of:

Mr Savage has a number of Most Common Themes among his letters; is the proportion of straights higher for Magic Bean LWs than it is for letters in other Common Theme categories?

I actually took out a sentence saying that I wasn't quite ready to blame Mr Kressley and his ilk, and now I don't know why I deleted it.

We can both be right, as I simply said, Quite a Lot instead of Most. My point is that some straight people are gay-supportive (or -accepting or - tolerant) only because we're so useful to them. (My favourite example of the patronizing attitude actually uses a different point. Recall in Reversal of Fortune when Mr von Bulow's female companion tells Mr Dershowitz in a brilliantly kyriarchal tone how it was her idea to hire him, "Get the Jew, I told him.") If we think back to the LW from a deep red state who wrote in oh so gratefully because only Mr Savage's advice was able to save his marriage, perhaps in a positive light that was the eye-opener that made him a genuine Ally, or perhaps it just made him a Magic Bean sort of thinker who would tell his friends not to knock Da Queerz solely for the reason that we give such good advice. It would be nice to have received an update from that LW.

I'll agree that your type of Seeker also exists, and may be more numerous. Possibly we can consider them variations of the same thing; yours are just less honest about Straight Privilege, as there isn't a corresponding faith among non-straights in the Otherness of straight columnists. (You do give me cause to wonder, though, about whether straight men may have a similar attitude about women advice columnists having some particular feminine propensity for problem solving.) And they do have the basic facts on their side in that it's much harder for non-straight people (if not downright impossible) deliberately to maintain a desired ignorance of the Straight Experience than for those of the straight persuasion to avoid knowledge of Non-Straight Experience.

People are being too hard on her. I've got one of those at home. Lowish sex drive, I'm not quite his type, communication switches off once he's aroused, gets defensive when he's not.

I've tried telling him what I like: "Don't tell me what you like! Then I'll only be doing it because you told me to and that ruins it for me and I'll never do it." Or sometimes: "No, you don't like that." Or sometimes: "Why would I want to do that? It won't make me come." I've tried telling him that I want to something to my clit so that I can come: "No." I've tried saying open-endedly that I'd like to play with non-PIV sex: he sticks his dick in my mouth. I've tried asking him to try that thing where you have PIV sex with no foreplay but stop before either of you come, and do this all the time, so you're left wanting more instead of feeling let down: "What's the point in sex if I don't come?" I've tried waiting for him to do something I like and then being enthusiastic: it doesn't happen. I've tried buying books on communication and asking him to read them: "No." I've tried doing things I like without asking first: "Stop behaving like a porn actress!" I've tried being explicit that I am not finding our sex life very satisfactory and that something needs to change: "You love our sex life!"

The weird thing is that he actually would like to please me. He just wants to do it his way and has no clue. I tried to make the point that it would be really, really easy to please me by saying that for me, foreplay starts gently and gradually and that I wanted him to bring me orange juice in bed and that would be totally hot. He brought me a glass of orange juice (what I asked for) spiked with lime juice (his way) and I couldn't drink it (no clue) and started to cry. That was the end of that.

If he were more into me sexually it would probably be better because he'd be more motivated. But he's not, partly because his libido is lowish and partly because I'm not really his type (which he has let me know repeatedly and in no uncertain terms).

Yeah, we got married anyway for other reasons with our eyes wide open. We had the talk, I made the decision, I put some ads up and met a married guy who had a different sort of talk with his wife and who thinks he's hit the jackpot because I'm so smart and so beautiful.

So that letter read as if it could have been written by me. Maybe she didn't want to give details because she didn't want to sound like she was blaming him. But some guys really are just crappy lovers and aren't motivated to change.

Interestingly, my beloved gets turned on watching me get giddy looking forward to a date. Knowing that someone else thinks I'm hot makes me hotter in his eyes.

Dr Z - My original post took out a potential dig at the QE toadyism - as I just mentioned to Ms Cute, I don't know why I took it out; perhaps it felt a bit combative at the time. I never saw Mr Savage's column in the earlier version. Even though I doubt he fell into the trap of being non-threatening, I suspect that quite a few people were able to see him that way if they so desired.

I am basically willing to let the QE toadyism rest as something that might have been necessary at the time. I shan't dispute your Leader and Teacher vision, which definitely exists. And, as I said, I'm not especially interested in Most, so that it isn't essential to this question whether more straight people see gay people as Leaders and Teachers or as Cute, Non-Threatening Eunuchs. It's probably more of a scale anyway.

@Dr Z - I for one am not reading Dan because he happens to be gay, but because he gives good advice. Reading elsewhere on the net commendations of his advice, I started reading before knowing anything about his sexual orientation. He's not known in my country - so the "renowned gay columnist" aura doesn't apply.

Another way to look at this : there are plenty of gay LW who apply to Dan and hope he will magically solve their unfixable problems, just like straight LW.

Still another way : Dan would not have become a renowned columnist in our at-its-core homophobic current western culture, if he was not a really good columnist. I think his humanity, his empathy and his good sense are far more grounds for his success than whatever personal quirks coming from his sexual orientation (such as a certain canned ham comparison). Maybe hip curiosity for what a gay had to say did give him a head start in his "hey faggot" phase (long before I started reading), but his success would have long dwindled if he had only that trick to go for him.

What wonders me is how Dan has been able to use his unique job position to educate the masses about sexual orientation bigotry, and how he succeeds just by being himself, a decent - and very courageous - human. It's lovely.

@55 (AJC): I'm glad you found a solution that works for you. I was in a variation of your marriage, but my (now ex-) husband wasn't quite as resistant as yours to suggestions pertaining to his and my sexual behavior. But when I tried to have "the talk" to open up the marriage (and before that, I suggested we try going to sex clubs or getting into swapping, so both of us could find more excitement and fulfillment and so that we could still participate in our sex life together in some way), he shot it down with the statement that if I were to do that, he was "out of there."

I explained that his position was ensuring I had no sexual satisfaction and that furthermore it strongly suggested he didn't care whether I was satisfied or not. He said he was sorry; he didn't mean to hurt me--but he also didn't change his position. So I went ahead, figured I had done my due diligence and given fair warning, and put an ad up and found my married man (who hadn't had a talk with his wife, just out-and-out cheated. But in the long run, we would both be seen as the same in most people's eyes).

Unfortunately, like someone on a different thread here, I fall in love after I've had really good, mind-shattering sex with someone repeatedly. She put her number at 2 times; I am probably able to hold out for a half dozen or so.

Since my husband hadn't approved the extra-marital sex I was having, he couldn't appreciate the gleam in my eye as I got ready for a date. And while I can love more than one person at a time, when I'm in love with someone, I want to be with him--I certainly didn't want to sneak and hide and never mention him to anyone and worry about being found out.

Ultimately both the affair and my marriage ended, within a year of each other. I hope your situation works out better, I truly do.

@AJC Your situation with your husband looks pretty worrying to me.

Not at all because his sex drive doesn't match yours - hey, you've gone open, so you've fixed that already - but because he feels entitled to tell you what YOU think and feel. That's a big, huge red flag.

To me it means that he's not considering you as a separate entity from him, worthy of his attention. He's considering you as an extension of himself. For him, his image of you in his head has more value than who you really happen to be. I find that frightening.

And he's also telling you that doing things for your sexual pleasure, regardless of his, doesn't appeal to him. I find that deeply unsexy in a partner.

In your words he's the exact opposite of GGG : not good in bed, not game for anything that's not originated in himself, and worse than that : absolutely not giving.

"What's the point in sex if I don't come" shows he confuses one-person sex aka masturbation (goal : unilateral sexual pleasure, one's orgasm expected) with two-persons sex (goal : sharing and exchange of sexual pleasure to build togetherness, orgasms from one OR the other expected).

Your expressed feelings not being recognized as real by him, your sexual pleasure being none of his interests... how come he gives no value to what makes you, you ? How come he silences your wishes, and treats you as a wishless body, as if you were just a realistic-enough doll for him to masturbate into ?

"he actually would like to please me. He just wants to do it his way and has no clue"

You think he would like to please you because, either he's told you so and you've bought into his words at face value, despite his very telling actions of his utter dislike of doing the slightest thing to please you - or you project how you would react onto him.

Spiking the orange juice you asked for with lime ? Come on, it's not "his way"+"no clue". It's textbook passive agressive - even the simplest task you ask of him, he finds a creative way to flunk, and then the blame for the flunking is heaped on you. And it worked, didn't it ? You were the one who cried. And thus ended some experimenting he was very intent to derail.

You've given him plenty of clues and he's answered that with intended deafness ("YOU like our sex life") and also with verbal abuse ("Stop behaving like a porn actress" : like a whore, right ?).

That's pretty bad.

I don't know what are your reasons for staying in this relationship, I'm sure they are pretty deep, since you've made such efforts time and time again to make it work, despite his barrage of ill-will. So I would understand you not being ready to envision the next logical step, of DTMFA.

But you should at least try to emotionnally disconnect from him. Because he's not emotionnally connected to you. Obviously, on his part, paining you is easy and remorseless. Don't let him use your attachment to him to manipulate you.

@AJC, to follow up on sissoucat's excellent advice... if your husband knows you will never, ever leave him, or stop trying to please him, he has no incentive to change. I know therapy isn't a cure-all, but how far have you gone down that road (not couples counseling, just for you)?

@26: Yes, of course. I was speaking of the principle, not necessarily specifically the Letter Writer. A man could take that approach too, and I was just covering all the bases.

"But she could simply say, "oh, I figured we were done with that. Feel free to make other arrangements if you like."

To which a perfectly logical response would be, "Did you just say you refuse to have sex with me, your husband, ever again? And you expect me to simply accept that without an ounce of explanation as to why you are unilaterally cutting me off? Wrong answer. You have some explaining to do."

@avast, you want to continue this hypothetical conversation? Sure. Then she says:

"Oh, you're interested in talking about our sex life? Well explain to me why it took you a year to notice that we weren't have sex anymore? I'm not a fleshlight you can keep on the shelf until you feel like using it. I'm a sexual person with needs for intimacy and sexual play. You made it clear you weren't interested in that side of me, so I made other arrangements. Yes, those involve other people. If you want the details, let me know. If you want to reboot our sex life, that's going to involve work on both our parts: I won't just have sex with you tonight and then let it go another year before we do it again. I won't shelve my other soul-preserving arrangements so that you can have sex with me once a year. Are you ready to find a sex-positive therapist we can talk to about this issue?"

@61, also, about the man -- a man who wants to avoid getting other people pregnant outside his marriage would be well advised to get a vasectomy. He should probably discuss that with his wife, though...

@63: Well, yes, that was exactly the point: that there are some definite limitations to the tactic of simply cutting off sex with the spouse and going on your merry way behind their back. Sooner or later, you run up against something that makes it necessary to discuss it.

@55: "The weird thing is that he actually would like to please me. He just wants to do it his way"

These two are mutually exclusive (in your case).

@64 only if your partner wants to discuss it openly. If your partner is incredibly resistant to talking about the problem, then you can end up talking about other things, rather than the elephant in the room -- or just not talking at all.

For instance, in the case of the vasectomy: "We're done having children, agreed? I'm planning on getting a vasectomy." If she says "okay," then it doesn't lead to a conversation about your unilateral outside sex life.

In the case of the spouse who wants sex just once a year, the high-libido person says: "that's not okay with me. Want to start counseling to find a middle ground?" If the low-libido person says "no, I don't want counseling," then the conversation's over.

@30 I wasn't talking about raising anyone's libido. I was talking about the husband performing certain actions for his wife regardless of whether he felt in the mood or not. Women do it all the time. That's why they're called "husbandly/wifely duties" and not "husbandly/wifely if-I'm-feeling-its."

The problem here isn't only the husband's low libido. It's the husband's low libido and refusal to see to his wife's needs. The problem with Mr. Savage's response is that he says that the only two options are misery or adultery, when in fact there are many more. Just look at @55's letter, at all the stuff she tried before she went looking for an outside companion, but as @58 points out, doing so can backfire. For most people, sex is at least a little connected to the emotions, and emotions are complicated.

@37 Neat.

@55 AJC:

If there were a list of things I'd say to my wife if she was having fun enjoying sex with me, "stop acting like a porn actress" wouldn't be on it. If anything it almost seems like he's got some kind of script running in his head, with himself playing the role of stud, and gratification must only be doled out at the wave of his "wand". For his sake, as well as yours, think about counseling.

Peace

@AJC: Wow.

I've come to believe in the idea of a sexual IQ, and your post very clearly illustrates what someone in the 70 range looks like.

sissoucat @59, EricaP @60, Married in MA @68 — thank you all for your excellent advice. Yes, we have reasons for staying together. Reasons that are important to us even if they don’t resonate with strangers on the internet.

Of note, our friends and families have both been delighted with our relationship since 2001 and show no signs of slacking off. He’s friends with my friends, I’m friends with his friends. Both sets tell us how suited we are to one another — in an admiring way, not in a “you two deserve eachother” way. That’s not why we’re staying together, it’s just... yeah, I told you the worst. But our reasons for staying together aren’t totally crazy and predicated on low self-esteem either.

I’ve taken counselling as far as I care to. I have a therapist I see every now and then when I need a boost and I really don’t want more. I’ve been around that block several times in the last twenty years and mostly it just made my life worse. I would do what they said even though it felt pointless and I would feel discouraged and stupid and feel more miserable than when I started. My current therapist suggests that’s because I had already learned those lessons and moved on, the exercises really were pointless for me and that I wasn’t getting anything from them wasn’t my fault. I prefer to go with that interpretation. I’ve developed insight into my own passive-aggressive style and I’m working on it, but it wasn’t a therapist who took me there.

My point is that of Married in MA @68 (again) and seandr @69. There are limited folks out there. If someone has visual-spatial and verbal 1Qs of 140, an emotional IQ of 90 and a sexual IQ of 70, and they are dependent on a terrible, inflexible script, you just aren’t going to get very far with them.

And some of us are married to them.

Blaming a wife for her husband’s IQ, as some folks have done upthread, is not fair.

nocutename @58 — yeah, that’s worrying me too. If there were easy answers people wouldn’t be asking Dan for summa them magic beans. Thanks for your well-wishes.

@AJC, well, okay, you're not willing even to consider leaving as a tool in your negotiation toolkit. That's your call. Can you explain these sections of your lament above?

"I've tried telling him that I want to something to my clit so that I can come"

What is stopping you from stimulating your clit during PIV so you can come? Is the problem his preferred position, or your reluctance to touch yourself / grab a vibrator?

"I've tried saying open-endedly that I'd like to play with non-PIV sex: he sticks his dick in my mouth."

Some of us love giving oral, and use the opportunity to stimulate ourselves at the same time. Are you saying with that sentence that you don't like giving him oral, or just that you'd like him to reciprocate?

Yes, it’s my call.

1) Preferred position. (See also “Stop behaving like a porn actress!”) For an intense, clitoral orgasm I want to be relaxed on my back. He likes me on top where I can reach fine but I don’t want to get too worked up because I won’t be coming.

2) Both. (See also preferred position.) I really don’t mind doing something that isn’t that great for me if it’s great for my partner, but if I’m not going to get reciprocation of any kind (which I won’t) it’s harder for me to work up the enthusiasm. There are other forms of non-PIV sex than me giving him a blowjob but they aren’t the answers he comes up with when given an open-ended prompt.

*** *** ***
Also: I have said several times that I think we should take a couples massage workshop. He always declines on the grounds that if I sit on him on a soft bed it will hurt his back. Discussions of floor massage or buying a massage table or techniques we don’t already know about that we would learn in a class don’t go anywhere.

@70: "And some of us are married to them.

Blaming a wife for her husband’s IQ, as some folks have done upthread, is not fair."

If people shouldn't "victim-blame" you (understandably), and you're aware of the problem, why are you still married to him, aside from a strange sense of obligation? Your claims that he's interested in pleasing you run counter to his demands that he can only do it "his" way and that you're a porny slut when you suggest things your way.

This isn't sexual autism, where he's got a myopic capacity for understanding. From the sounds of things, he's aware of what normal function is, he just has no place for it in his "ideal" marriage and the day to day upkeep seems to get in the way.

Say he was "born this way" and incapable of change. Why did you progress knowing this other than sense of obligation/honor/moral code/sunk cost?

So AJC and her husband don't like to fuck the same way (unfortunate) but he's "delighted" when she gets excited about a date? Cuckhold perhaps? At any rate, it seems like at least a partial solution has been reached, and sometimes you've just got to round it up to a victory.

I believe we are slowly inching towards the day when women can explore sexuality with out being slut-shamed, and are able to communicate specific needs to their partners with out stomping on the egos of men who have ridged and ingrained ideas about what should be pleasing to women.

Once I realized I needed near constant clit stimulation leading up to an orgasm during sex, I was super excited to find that I could do it every time, multiple times. But I had guys who hated that, who would actually move my hand away and say "why are you doing that, you don't need to do that, no one else has ever needed to do that" It was off putting, because it didn't jive with the flow of how sex was supposed to go in their minds.

"There are other forms of non-PIV sex than me giving him a blowjob but they aren’t the answers he comes up with when given an open-ended prompt."

Why do you give him open-ended prompts? He's only interested in what he wants; why are you acting like you might be able to get him to want what you want? Why do you want him to take classes and read books, when it seems like he's a million miles from being able to benefit from them? If he won't give you oral when you ask directly, taking a class to learn how to communicate better doesn't seem like a fix.

What would happen if you refused to be slut-shamed, if you told him you've decided to embrace your porn-star self, if you told him you agree that "What's the point in sex if I don't come?" What leverage does he hold over you that prevents you from demanding the acts that you want in exchange for him getting what he wants? Do you fear him getting violent? Do you fear your sex life would dwindle away because he has a lower libido than you? Why would that be a problem, since the sex you have with him seems to make you miserable?

To be clear, I'm not saying you should cut him off sexually, but I don't see how anything can change if you won't use any leverage at all with him. He's not your friend or ally in this. Have you read about "normal marital sadism"? If not, google it. It's David Schnarch's term; I really like his books.

undead ayn rand @74: None of your bizwax.

I didn’t ask for anyone to fix me or my husband, or for anyone’s opinion on whether or not I should leave. I just asked people to consider the likelihood that NIB’s husband doesn’t have a lot to work with.

Several folks upthread seemed to think that it was much more likely that NIB’s husband simply had no idea that there was anything in particular that she wanted and everything would be fine once they actually spoke, which it never occurred to NIB to do. Similarly, EricaP @72 suggests as a reasonable possibility that the only thing wrong with my sex life is that I won’t take responsibility for it, which it never occurred to me to do.

Nobody made that suggestion to VAG in Thursday’s LotD. They were clear that whatever VAG’s hangups and limitations, the real problem was that her boyfriend was a bad boyfriend. http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archive…

But somehow when a man is a bad lover it’s likely to be his wife’s fault. Either she’s being secretive about what she wants or she’s ruined everything by telling him that she’s not happy or she’s mean, nasty and unattactive, or (as in my case) she refuses/ is too unimaginative to get herself off.

NIB chose to leave rather than put up with it any more. I’m choosing to try something else. Both of us are demonstrating agency. Neither of us need to be told that it’s our fault for being passive (we aren’t) or for being the cause of our bad sex lives (Dan sees no reason to work on the assumption that she is and neither do I) or for lying back and tolerating abuse that we won’t see (we aren’t).

EricaP @76

As stated in AJC @55, open-ended prompts were only one of several strategies.

“Do you fear your sex life would dwindle away because he has a lower libido than you? Why would that be a problem, since the sex you have with him seems to make you miserable?” Exactly. I did fear that, but I came to that exact conclusion. I cut him off two and a half years ago and now I’m dating a married man who has the hots for me. If he ever gets enough of his libido back to want to work for it, we can talk. But I’m not going to take the blame.

Why do you assume that I refuse to use any leverage at all?

No I haven’t heard the term “normal marital sadism” but (not having googled it yet) yes, it sounds like it’s describing an element of my marriage. I don’t tolerate that shit.

Zbot @75: Thank you.

@78 Until this post, I thought you were still enduring terrible sex with your husband (in additon to your outside lover) and trying to find ways to improve your husband's attitude. Thanks for explaining that you are doing fine. I'm relieved to hear that.

@70 AJC:

Sigh. I was in fact hoping for counseling for your husband, and am sorry you feel you've hit the "end" of yours.

Peace

EricaP @78,

I usually love your comments. You’re smart, empathetic and you’ve been around the block enough to see lots of variation and how it’s acommodated. Today though you seem very invested in my marriage and sex life. You don’t need to be relieved: my issues are not your responsibility and I did not ask for your help, even though you would be one of the people I might ask if I wanted it.

Are you doing ok?

Married in MA @81,

Why were you specifically hoping for counselling for a man you’ve never met? Why does it make you sad that a woman you have never met is not interested in counselling?

It’s great to hope generally that other people will be creative and loving enough to work towards solutions that are better than their current situations. I hope that for everyone, and I’m always interested in what they work out because it’s always different from what would be appealing, acceptable or useful for me.

But it’s a bit odd to hope that people will use a specific process to get where they need to go and to be sad when they — for reasons you know nothing about — do not engage that specific process. The world is a big place!

@82: "Why were you specifically hoping for counselling for a man you’ve never met? Why does it make you sad that a woman you have never met is not interested in counselling? "

People are commenting on your resignment to fate because you're using your anecdotes in connection with the OP's story. Is it our business to speculate? It's normal to have opinions about anything discussed in the comments here. All people hear here is the disrespect and disinterest shown to you, not the awesome stuff.

What undead ayn rand said.

@AJC: Honey, I think it's time to admit you're being victimized by your husband. Your husband isn't sexually incompetent, he's a sadist. All that business about knowing and accepting what you were getting into and marrying for reasons other than sex are classic rationalizations of the battered, manipulated, and abused. And if he really loved you, would he let you play with other men? I think we all know the answer to that question.

Look, sweetie, I know all this information is swirling around in your pretty little head and making everything seem so gosh darn dizzy and confusing. That's because you're not in a position right now to know your own interests. But that's ok because we're here to help you! All you need to do is let us.

Now see these two enormous gentleman at the door? They're going to take you to a pretty place with nice people to take care of you and help you recover all those repressed memories. I know they're holding you rather tightly, but that's just so you don't hurt yourself as they strap you to the gurney in the back of the van. And that little prick you just felt? Only a tranquilizer. Feels kind of nice, doesn't it? Good, because it's part the 24/7 drug regimen your new doctor has prescribed.

And I have good news, your husband's in a place now where he can no longer harm you.

@82 AJC:

What an excellent question. 

The short answer is because it worked for me.  Because it worked, even for me, I hope that the relief and healing can be utilized by others.

The (slightly) longer answer is that I had to overcome my own "scripting".  While it drove me to great success in my professional realm, it played havoc with my being a parent, husband, and ultimately a person.  My "script" kept me from being able to recognize emotional problems and gain help before I had a catastrophic breakdown.  I'm now a much better husband and father, at least from the point that I am making the choices, not my programming.  

While I took the hard road (at least I stayed outpatient), I can now ask for and accept help.  It was a lesson that didn't require the cost I paid for it, in no small part due to hubris in "not being weak".  Of course that changed over the course of my final anxiety attack that ended my career. 

It helps me feel better that, perhaps, someone can read my words and find solace and comfort.

Peace

@85: Lawl, our semi-concerned response hasn't quite been the Ludovico Technique.

@AJC I'm sorry some of our answers hurt your feelings.

I'm sure none of the commenters had in their mind to blame you, or to berate you for your marital situation, or for not wanting out of it.

Most of us have been in pretty bad situations ourselves, and when we now read people who are describing bad situations, we tend to offer them, even though unasked, the advice we think we should have received at that time. Even though, actually, we probably would have resented any advice given to us, because we were inside the abuse, not looking at it from the outside - and that changes a lot in the way one experiences the same situation.

Our concording opinion is that you're being unfairly treated. We don't know you, we don't know your husband, we're not friends of either. Unlike your friends and family, we're absolutely not emotionally invested in your relationship. All we've had to work with are your anonymous words. And to all of us, they sounded pretty bad. That's something you ought to think about.

That doesn't mean that you should feel pressured by us to change anything. Maybe divorcing will be worse that what you're living with now - but being badly treated has a heavy toll too, as we've experienced ourselves, and we simply don't wish that on you.

I hope you'll find your way to make it better, and I wish you all good.

But let me add that I absolutely despise your husband. There's no achievement, no special quality that can compensate being a jerk to one's spouse, sexually or otherwise.

My mistake, in writing #88, I hadn't read yet that you had cut him off sexually two years ago. That was a good move.

And yes, you deserve none of the blame for that. Ending something that doesn't work and can't be changed is the healthiest choice.

There's another word for "open relationship" - divorce, especially for the person who suggests it.

If you go the "open relationship" route, you're just kicking the can down the road (as they say during debt ceiling soundbytes). "Open relationships" may be cool amongst the hipster Capitol Hill bohemian set, but at the end of the day they are a waste of time.

You do love this man, but while sex isn't the most important part of a marriage, it is still part of it, and you're not getting it. You can't have a healthy relationship while a fundamental part of it is missing.

So I have a third option: You didn't mention why you think you're husband isn't into sex. It could be health reasons, psychological or emotional reasons. Those are what come to mind immediately, and I think some counseling might do him some good. Maybe even sexual counseling. From what you say, the lack of sexual compatibility seems to be at the root of the troubles you're having, so maybe focusing on getting a breakthrough with that may help everything else to come into line.

Good luck!

Looks like AJC and her beloved have found something that works. Not something that works for everyone, but something that works for these two. And clearly they have compelling reasons to stay together. And they have work-arounds. At least they aren't sleeping with dogs.