Slog Comments
SL Letter of the Day: Three One-Word Answers
1
Run SINS! Run fast!
Still amazes how often leaving a sexless relationship gets bogged down in morality instead of common sense. Also of note is that it's ALWAYS the low-libido partner that gets their way.
Go Dan- Victorian sexual mores in the 21st century are so silly.
Still amazes how often leaving a sexless relationship gets bogged down in morality instead of common sense. Also of note is that it's ALWAYS the low-libido partner that gets their way.
Go Dan- Victorian sexual mores in the 21st century are so silly.
2
"This point came last week and I stayed true to me word. "
After this line, I couldn't help but imagine this letter being read in a pirate accent.
After this line, I couldn't help but imagine this letter being read in a pirate accent.
7
Honey, lesbians will do this to you. (I know, I am one.) It’s ok, you can leave. The world won’t end, lesbianism will continue to exist, your community will forgive you, straight people won’t think any differently about you in particular or lesbians in general. On the upside, you’ll gain some perspective and compassion, for yourself and others.
And you will find love again. Next time, take some responsibility. Don’t make your girlfriend throw fits and spy on you to make you tell the truth. Just... tell the truth. From the start. Then follow where it leads.
And you will find love again. Next time, take some responsibility. Don’t make your girlfriend throw fits and spy on you to make you tell the truth. Just... tell the truth. From the start. Then follow where it leads.
8
You need something your partner won't give, and refuses to give, and won't let you get anywhere else, and you're wondering if you're selfish?
You're a sweetheart; run away. Both of you would be happier with someone else.
You're a sweetheart; run away. Both of you would be happier with someone else.
9
The low-libido partner is committing the worst sort of passive-aggressive sadism in a situation like this. That's not a relationship, it's bullshit. SINS would be doing herself and the community a favor by waving goodbye to this person. She'll be happier getting her ashes hauled by someone who cares (and hauling someone's ashes), and ms. chastity belt one can find herself a "partner" for those long walks on the beach followed by a stimulating game of whist.
10
What does a lesbian do who's excommunicated from the lesbian community? Is there really even such a thing? Is it all-encompassing? If the answers to the following two questions are yes, being a lesbian must be a difficult lot. Good luck should the inevitable female drama sting you on the ass.
Sometimes it's so much better not having people you rely on, or can rely upon. You don't need to exist underneath anyone's judgment; it's called freedom; it's actually a two-edged sword--cuts both ways.
Sometimes it's so much better not having people you rely on, or can rely upon. You don't need to exist underneath anyone's judgment; it's called freedom; it's actually a two-edged sword--cuts both ways.
11
I like how he categorizes a long term intimate relationship as a sexual relationship, not a romantic relationship. I think that probably says something.
12
@11
Romance must be pretty fucking boring without the beast-with-two-backs. You must be an absolute delight in a relationship. Why don't you write a sonnet conflating modesty with simple, rural beauty, you fag?
Romance must be pretty fucking boring without the beast-with-two-backs. You must be an absolute delight in a relationship. Why don't you write a sonnet conflating modesty with simple, rural beauty, you fag?
13
@11 There's a term for someone who is in a "romantic relationship" when there's no expectation of sex-- FriendZone.
14
I'm glad that Dan is still answering letters like this. If he can save people from years of misery, that would be doing a lot of good in the world.
15
Run. Here's my cautionary tale and reason why: I stayed in a sexless relationship for approximately four years because I believed my partner had become impotent. Turned out he wasn't; I found out later that he was just having an elaborate relationship involving himself and porn that didn't involve me. I hadn't strayed, thought about it often although I would never actually do it, and justified my misery because I believed the non-sexual portions of our relationship were extremely good and I didn't want to be the person who left someone because of a medical condition. Everything changed after I found out how selfish he had been, ended it, and I got a partner with a compatible sex drive again. It was like I'd shed four years. Honestly the way things are now, you won't be happy, she won't be happy, and you both deserve a chance at that with someone who fulfills you.
16
People you love but don't have sex with are called your friends and family. Romance is something else altogether.
17
At this point I have to believe that Dan has already answered this particular relationship question from letter writers of every single imaginable demographic - age, marital status, gender, sexual orientation, etc. Geez, how many different ways can you say "If your partner refuses to ever fuck you, leave without shame"?
19
Dan is right,as usual, LW. Leave her. You are sexually incompatible. You can find a better love, one with a closer sex drive, and so can she.
Don't cheat next time. If you had dumped her back then instead of cheating, you could be in a better relationship right now.
Don't cheat next time. If you had dumped her back then instead of cheating, you could be in a better relationship right now.
20
Hey, Bro, I'll buy you a drink and tell you all about it.
Oh, sorry I didn't realize you weren't a dude...
In that case, I'll buy you a drink and tell you all about it.
Oh, sorry I didn't realize you weren't a dude...
In that case, I'll buy you a drink and tell you all about it.
21
I agree the LW should run, and run fast, but I have to wonder if part of the reason the sexless partner is so adamant about no open relationship is because the LW has cheated repeatedly. That's not a good foundation on which to build an open relationship.
22
"I'm sorry, honey, but it's over. I'm leaving."
"But why?"
"We are not compatible for the long-term. I wish it were otherwise, but neither of us are going to change, so now's the time."
"But why?"
"We are not compatible for the long-term. I wish it were otherwise, but neither of us are going to change, so now's the time."
23
Letter Writer, your girlfriend apparently is incapable of seeing the situation in terms of your needs. The amount and quality of sex you two are having feels just fine TO HER, therefore she just isn't experiencing this as a problem.
The psych term for this is "impaired perspective-taking." The colloquial term is "selfish asshole."
Personally I am inclined more to use the latter term because despite you explaining it to her multiple times, she hasn't shifted at all towards meeting your needs. She can't be bothered to fuck you, but damned if anybody else is going to fuck you either. If it was food we were talking about, instead of sex, there would be no question that she was an abuser.
Leave now, and find someone that you are compatible with.
The psych term for this is "impaired perspective-taking." The colloquial term is "selfish asshole."
Personally I am inclined more to use the latter term because despite you explaining it to her multiple times, she hasn't shifted at all towards meeting your needs. She can't be bothered to fuck you, but damned if anybody else is going to fuck you either. If it was food we were talking about, instead of sex, there would be no question that she was an abuser.
Leave now, and find someone that you are compatible with.
24
Lesbian Bed Death after 7 years is one thing.
Lesbian Bed Death before you move in together ... Nuh uh, Girlfriend!
Lesbian Bed Death before you move in together ... Nuh uh, Girlfriend!
25
Listen to Dan. Don't make the mistake that I and many others have done, and bow down and agree that since it wasn't a problem for my low-libido partner, it must not be a "real" problem. RUN. Also, trust me: your libido is just STARTING on its ascent.
27
L, G, B, T or just plain S -- it's pretty clear that sex and relationships don't mix.
The future?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgG_UuTuk…
28
I agree SINS should leave. But why demonize her partner? Some people are happy in low/no sex marriages which are monogamous. For some people that is the "price of admission", the same way for others it might be polyamory or foot bondage or whatnot. Both parties were being upfront -- SINS about her desire for more sex, her partner for her desire for monogamy and about her clear lack of desire for sex (SINS doesn't indicate her partner blameshifting her low-libido). Both knew the "price of admission" and it seems that SINS has realized that for her, that price is too high. I'm sure both SINS and her partner will be able to find partners better suited to them.
I can understand, in theory, that if something isn't a big deal to you then it would be difficult to conceptualize another person needing it. That may show a certain ignorance or obliviousness, but not pathological malevolence, as some here seem to imply. Sex, for all its pleasures, simply isn't food -- at least for all people.
I can understand, in theory, that if something isn't a big deal to you then it would be difficult to conceptualize another person needing it. That may show a certain ignorance or obliviousness, but not pathological malevolence, as some here seem to imply. Sex, for all its pleasures, simply isn't food -- at least for all people.
29
@28: "But why demonize her partner?"
Her attitude, that's why. In a nutshell, "I'm not interested in meeting that need for you. But I will not allow anyone else to meet that need for you either."
I wasn't trying to equate sex with food. (Though your comment about sex not being food sounds an awful lot like you think sex is expendable, in which case I sure hope your partner feels the same, or else you may be guilty of the same thing. Sex is not expendable unless both partners feel it is expendable.) I was trying to illustrate the principle by analogy to food, not equation to it: "I'm not willing to feed you. But I will not allow anyone else to feed you either. As far as I'm concerned, you get to starve."
Aside from being uncaring and unsupportive ("Sorry honey, but it's really important to me that you simply go without"), it is also selfish and hypocritical. Either something is trivial or it is important. It cannot be both. If it is important, then it is worth making sure that it gets met. If it is trivial, then it is unimportant that it gets met elsewhere.
Also, the fact that in this case the withholding partner is threatening to leave, rather than simply recognizing and accepting their fundamental incompatibility. Again, she is trying to force it all her own way. This strikes me as selfish.
I agree that #22 has the best formulation: gracious, non-confrontational, but no-nonsense. However, that isn't incompatible with acknowledging that LW's girlfriend is being the proverbial dog in the manger.
Her attitude, that's why. In a nutshell, "I'm not interested in meeting that need for you. But I will not allow anyone else to meet that need for you either."
I wasn't trying to equate sex with food. (Though your comment about sex not being food sounds an awful lot like you think sex is expendable, in which case I sure hope your partner feels the same, or else you may be guilty of the same thing. Sex is not expendable unless both partners feel it is expendable.) I was trying to illustrate the principle by analogy to food, not equation to it: "I'm not willing to feed you. But I will not allow anyone else to feed you either. As far as I'm concerned, you get to starve."
Aside from being uncaring and unsupportive ("Sorry honey, but it's really important to me that you simply go without"), it is also selfish and hypocritical. Either something is trivial or it is important. It cannot be both. If it is important, then it is worth making sure that it gets met. If it is trivial, then it is unimportant that it gets met elsewhere.
Also, the fact that in this case the withholding partner is threatening to leave, rather than simply recognizing and accepting their fundamental incompatibility. Again, she is trying to force it all her own way. This strikes me as selfish.
I agree that #22 has the best formulation: gracious, non-confrontational, but no-nonsense. However, that isn't incompatible with acknowledging that LW's girlfriend is being the proverbial dog in the manger.
30
@28 The reason people are demonizing her is probably a reaction to our society's tendancy to demonize the partner that wants more sex. Two wrongs don't make a right but it's understandable that they react this way.
31
The partner's been demonized for holding her girlfriend in a relationship that she is clearly miserable in, unwilling to negotiate, and hasn't simply cut the cord so she can find someone else.
"Some people are happy in low/no sex marriages which are monogamous." - SINS is clearly not one of those people, and yet her girlfriend hasn't let her free.
The worst of it is the fact that SINS made an agreement with her girlfriend to fess up when she felt her eyes straying that she would confide in her - a very sane agreement that can help prevent a cheating episode by being able to talk about it - and the girlfriend's reaction to that was to threaten to leave. A threat, of course, that she has no intention of following through on - there's no reason for her to get rid of her chew toy.
Having an agreement whereby a cheating SO comes to you when they feel they're about to stray to talk it out, and going ballistic when they do actually come to you to talk it out isn't just cruel, it's stupid. You're actively training this other person to lie to you.
"Some people are happy in low/no sex marriages which are monogamous." - SINS is clearly not one of those people, and yet her girlfriend hasn't let her free.
The worst of it is the fact that SINS made an agreement with her girlfriend to fess up when she felt her eyes straying that she would confide in her - a very sane agreement that can help prevent a cheating episode by being able to talk about it - and the girlfriend's reaction to that was to threaten to leave. A threat, of course, that she has no intention of following through on - there's no reason for her to get rid of her chew toy.
Having an agreement whereby a cheating SO comes to you when they feel they're about to stray to talk it out, and going ballistic when they do actually come to you to talk it out isn't just cruel, it's stupid. You're actively training this other person to lie to you.
33
It's simple, really:
Good sex can't save an otherwise emotionally unfullfilling relationship.
But bad (eg unsatisfying for one or both partners) sex can destroy an otherwise healthy relationship.
It's baffling how sex in our culture is overrated and underrated at the same time.
Good sex can't save an otherwise emotionally unfullfilling relationship.
But bad (eg unsatisfying for one or both partners) sex can destroy an otherwise healthy relationship.
It's baffling how sex in our culture is overrated and underrated at the same time.
34
Relationships with all the bases covered still require real work and effort to maintain. I would not even bother with something so flawed at its core. DTMFA
36
"Both of you would be happier with someone else."
Uh, no. The LW would be happier with someone else. The no-sex partner is quite content with the relationship because it includes the sadistic pleasure of making LW jump through hoops for something that will never come, and force her to abase herself for having normal sexual desires and a wish to make love to her partner. Sathy's got it right: "there's no reason for her to get rid of her chew toy". Somebody who won't fuck their partner, who makes the partner miserable because of it, and who bullies them when they follow exactly the script written for them is a colossal, abusive douchebag, period.
It's weird how a lot of the people who will be infuriated at the use of the word "entitled" (as in "you can't say you're entitled to fuck your own partner! nobody's entitled to sex that a partner doesnt' want to give!") suddenly become ardent fans of the "entitlement" concept when it's an entitlement to sentence the partner to a life without sex and a slow, worsening decline into the misery and self-loathing that happens when the person that they love won't touch them.
Uh, no. The LW would be happier with someone else. The no-sex partner is quite content with the relationship because it includes the sadistic pleasure of making LW jump through hoops for something that will never come, and force her to abase herself for having normal sexual desires and a wish to make love to her partner. Sathy's got it right: "there's no reason for her to get rid of her chew toy". Somebody who won't fuck their partner, who makes the partner miserable because of it, and who bullies them when they follow exactly the script written for them is a colossal, abusive douchebag, period.
It's weird how a lot of the people who will be infuriated at the use of the word "entitled" (as in "you can't say you're entitled to fuck your own partner! nobody's entitled to sex that a partner doesnt' want to give!") suddenly become ardent fans of the "entitlement" concept when it's an entitlement to sentence the partner to a life without sex and a slow, worsening decline into the misery and self-loathing that happens when the person that they love won't touch them.
38
I agree that the best solution for this relationship is probably for it to end, but I'm disturbed at how much the LW's partner is being demonised here.
The fact is that she is simply not going to be able to agree to an open relationship unless she feels completely secure. And she can't feel secure if her partner has cheated on her, unless there is a long period of healing where there has been no cheating. 'Repeatedly cheating' in a 3 year relationship can't possibly have allowed enough time for healing to happen and security to develop. She may really have thought it would be better if her partner told her in advance, but then just couldn't handle it when it actually happened, as it triggered all those insecurities again.
I think it's also a mistake to assume that a low-libido partner is always happy with their sex life, as long as the higher-libido partner is getting less sex than they want. In fact, the low-libido partner may feel terribly guilty about not providing enough sex for their partner, anxious that the higher-libido partner will make a sexual advance that they don't want, and will have to either rebuff (maybe sparking an argument or long, painful discussion) or go along with against their preference. Which is unlikely to help them become more interested in sex overall. If most of the sex you're having is for someone else's benefit, and not what you want, I'd have thought you'd be more likely to go off sex completely than to increase your libido.
In terms of confidence, it's more than possible that these women are destroying *each other's* sexual confidence, rather than just the lower libido partner destroying the LW's confidence. Not being able to meet a partner's needs can result in feeling deeply inadequate, just as constantly being sexually rejected can hammer your confidence.
It is possible that the LW's partner is the kind of manipulative, selfish puppet-master that some in this thread have judged her, but I don't think there is really enough evidence to make the call either way.
It almost certainly is best for both partners in this case to separate, but not because the LW's partner is a bitch. Just because this seems to be an issue they are unlikely to be able to resolve at this point, and they will probably each be better off when they are no longer ripping each other apart.
More...
The fact is that she is simply not going to be able to agree to an open relationship unless she feels completely secure. And she can't feel secure if her partner has cheated on her, unless there is a long period of healing where there has been no cheating. 'Repeatedly cheating' in a 3 year relationship can't possibly have allowed enough time for healing to happen and security to develop. She may really have thought it would be better if her partner told her in advance, but then just couldn't handle it when it actually happened, as it triggered all those insecurities again.
I think it's also a mistake to assume that a low-libido partner is always happy with their sex life, as long as the higher-libido partner is getting less sex than they want. In fact, the low-libido partner may feel terribly guilty about not providing enough sex for their partner, anxious that the higher-libido partner will make a sexual advance that they don't want, and will have to either rebuff (maybe sparking an argument or long, painful discussion) or go along with against their preference. Which is unlikely to help them become more interested in sex overall. If most of the sex you're having is for someone else's benefit, and not what you want, I'd have thought you'd be more likely to go off sex completely than to increase your libido.
In terms of confidence, it's more than possible that these women are destroying *each other's* sexual confidence, rather than just the lower libido partner destroying the LW's confidence. Not being able to meet a partner's needs can result in feeling deeply inadequate, just as constantly being sexually rejected can hammer your confidence.
It is possible that the LW's partner is the kind of manipulative, selfish puppet-master that some in this thread have judged her, but I don't think there is really enough evidence to make the call either way.
It almost certainly is best for both partners in this case to separate, but not because the LW's partner is a bitch. Just because this seems to be an issue they are unlikely to be able to resolve at this point, and they will probably each be better off when they are no longer ripping each other apart.
39
Sexual needs are spectrum based. There is a low end and a high end. All are normal. You have a normal sex drive for you. Your partner has a normal sex drive for her. The two of you however, do not meet on that spectrum and never will unless one person is willing to drastically change. You aren't. She is not. Sex is important to your emotional health and survival. It's like water. I know, I was in a very similar relationship for 6 years and it destroyed me. I was the high libido and constantly rejected. Even to the point where I was instructed to not touch her in bed while sleeping. It was messed up. But I hung in there because I did love her. But it was a complete mindf*ck. I was dying and had to get out. I felt guilty that I ended it but did my own personal work to move through it and build myself up. And what a difference it makes to find that person who matches your libido. After a 4 year drought, I now have sex at least once a day, if not twice. And it's been that way for the last 2 years. It is amazing.
Leave graciously and gently. You need to do this for you.
Leave graciously and gently. You need to do this for you.
40
Megaera @38:
There's nothing wrong with your comments on generalities in such cases. The problem is, we're not dealing with a generality, we're dealing with a specific and responding to that. It's not fair to say that "X (an A) in Y situation is treating Z (a B) badly" is the same as saying "all Xs treat all Zs badly" in the same situation. Some people handle it with class and compassion, others don't and the LW's gf didn't.
There has been cheating for three years because the gf "has little interest in sex. When we do have sex its merely ...just kind of going through the motions". That sort of charity fuck eats the soul, and the LW's gf seems to expect her to do all the adapting. I think, too, that a lot of posters here are wary of lowsex/nosex types because we've had more of a few of 'em in here with entitlement attitudes, stating that they have every right to swim in the higher sex dating pool, causing, I believe, a bit of a backlash. Moreover, higher sex people are all too keenly aware of the reality that our families, friends, society, courts, therapists always expect the higher sex partner to do the adapting. Cutting off your spouse from sex won't be seen to impact your fitness as a parent, for example (no matter how miserable it makes them) but having sex outside your marriage will be seen as betraying both spouse and children.
Look, low/no-sex people aren't assholes. They just shouldn't date high sex people. Moreover, if you thus make your partner miserable AND make them more miserable when they do what you asked them to do then, yes, you're a massive asshole, and generalities be damned.
There's nothing wrong with your comments on generalities in such cases. The problem is, we're not dealing with a generality, we're dealing with a specific and responding to that. It's not fair to say that "X (an A) in Y situation is treating Z (a B) badly" is the same as saying "all Xs treat all Zs badly" in the same situation. Some people handle it with class and compassion, others don't and the LW's gf didn't.
There has been cheating for three years because the gf "has little interest in sex. When we do have sex its merely ...just kind of going through the motions". That sort of charity fuck eats the soul, and the LW's gf seems to expect her to do all the adapting. I think, too, that a lot of posters here are wary of lowsex/nosex types because we've had more of a few of 'em in here with entitlement attitudes, stating that they have every right to swim in the higher sex dating pool, causing, I believe, a bit of a backlash. Moreover, higher sex people are all too keenly aware of the reality that our families, friends, society, courts, therapists always expect the higher sex partner to do the adapting. Cutting off your spouse from sex won't be seen to impact your fitness as a parent, for example (no matter how miserable it makes them) but having sex outside your marriage will be seen as betraying both spouse and children.
Look, low/no-sex people aren't assholes. They just shouldn't date high sex people. Moreover, if you thus make your partner miserable AND make them more miserable when they do what you asked them to do then, yes, you're a massive asshole, and generalities be damned.
41
As usual, avast2006 and seeker6079 have the right of it (must have something to do with those 4-digit surnames). As avast points out @29: Either something is trivial or it is important. It cannot be both. If it is important, then it is worth making sure that it gets met. If it is trivial, then it is unimportant that it gets met elsewhere. LW's girlfriend isn't just saying she has a low sex drive, she's saying it's not important to her that LW wants more sex than she's willing to provide. You don't have to meet all of your partner's sexual needs. But you don't get to insist that they go without meeting those needs, and you definitely don't get to punish them for trying to adhere to your own expectations at the expense of their own needs. The most loving thing a truly monogamous person could say in this situation is "sweetie, I really love you but I just can't give you what you want, and I want you to be happy, so I think you need to be free to find someone who can."
And as has been pointed out, we live in a sex-negative culture, which not only favors the low-libido partner in the relationship, but also means the person at most risk of being demonized once the relationship ends is the LW, no matter how carefully she follows #22's advice.
And as has been pointed out, we live in a sex-negative culture, which not only favors the low-libido partner in the relationship, but also means the person at most risk of being demonized once the relationship ends is the LW, no matter how carefully she follows #22's advice.
42
#38, Good points. Interesting to see people on this forum tend to follow Dan's point, paraphrased, "why are those who find sex so unimportant not to need it much so upset with their partner's getting this very unimportant need met elsewhere?" I agree with this point, but sometimes wonder...
Why it is that this logic doesn't seem to work in reverse - i.e., those who are advocates of monogamishmishness tend to overlap heavily with those who attach great value to sex as a component of a healthy relationship?
Why it is that this logic doesn't seem to work in reverse - i.e., those who are advocates of monogamishmishness tend to overlap heavily with those who attach great value to sex as a component of a healthy relationship?
43
If you stay, you know what you are in for because things are not going to change. But first ask yourself if you have the right to be happy.
45
My question is - why do those who hold forth that sex *is* very important (and would, by the logic implied by the quote within my last post, not want their partner to share with others) also seem very open to non-monogamy?
46
SK@ 45:
Assuming arguendo the validity of your assumption that there's a large venning of "sex is important" with "monogamish" ....
** Perhaps because their emotional and intellectual definitions of "important" do not necessarily have "exclusive" as an integrated part thereof?
** Perhaps because their definition(s) of "important" exist in a scale where they are different from other people's? Permit me an example: as a fairly bog-standard monogamous het mail I rank "sexual exclusivity" far above "intellectual exclusivity" or "time exclusivity". By those standards, I consider sleeping with, say, my longtime friend Sally to be disloyal, whereas I wouldn't consider a long weekend away with Sally (in separate beds), discussing deep personal matters to be disloyal. Others might have those preferences/priorities reversed.
My answers are speculative, though. There are real monogamish types here who'd be able to go from real-life, so listen to them before me.
Assuming arguendo the validity of your assumption that there's a large venning of "sex is important" with "monogamish" ....
** Perhaps because their emotional and intellectual definitions of "important" do not necessarily have "exclusive" as an integrated part thereof?
** Perhaps because their definition(s) of "important" exist in a scale where they are different from other people's? Permit me an example: as a fairly bog-standard monogamous het mail I rank "sexual exclusivity" far above "intellectual exclusivity" or "time exclusivity". By those standards, I consider sleeping with, say, my longtime friend Sally to be disloyal, whereas I wouldn't consider a long weekend away with Sally (in separate beds), discussing deep personal matters to be disloyal. Others might have those preferences/priorities reversed.
My answers are speculative, though. There are real monogamish types here who'd be able to go from real-life, so listen to them before me.
47
Just wanted to add one more voice to this - I'm a guy, and I made this mistake not once, but twice: the first time because I thought it could change; the second time because I willfully blinded myself to the incompatibility.
I'm a guy, and in both cases the women were not 'witholding' in the sense of "I have no libido, therefore we'll have no sex" but rather in the sense of, "I have no real passion for you and will try to fake it". One just had a very hard time even getting aroused, and the other...just was tone-deaf to me and my body...to the point I wondered if she was trying to make it bad so I wouldn't want it.
After a while, you get tired of the implicit rejection of someone who is clearly not hot for you not being hot for you. If she is mechanical and goes through the motions, then there is no sexual chemistry, no matter how frequent she 'services' you. Dan has spoken up favorably about sometimes 'servicing' our partners, but this is not what he means. I promise, it will only cause more pain the longer you delay the inevitable.
@22 FTW indeed.
I'm a guy, and in both cases the women were not 'witholding' in the sense of "I have no libido, therefore we'll have no sex" but rather in the sense of, "I have no real passion for you and will try to fake it". One just had a very hard time even getting aroused, and the other...just was tone-deaf to me and my body...to the point I wondered if she was trying to make it bad so I wouldn't want it.
After a while, you get tired of the implicit rejection of someone who is clearly not hot for you not being hot for you. If she is mechanical and goes through the motions, then there is no sexual chemistry, no matter how frequent she 'services' you. Dan has spoken up favorably about sometimes 'servicing' our partners, but this is not what he means. I promise, it will only cause more pain the longer you delay the inevitable.
@22 FTW indeed.
48
@45 theory: people who find sex "very important" and get plenty of it from their partners (that is, they aren't driven to non-monogamy out of desire for more sex) are too busy fucking to post on Slog.
49
@45
Because sex is important. Monogamy is about not sharing. It's a completely separate issue from whether you have sex at all.
I have to laugh at the people here making logical arguments about sex and monogamy. Stay married long enough and you'll find out how having logic on your side and being "right" count for exactly zero. Decide that you want to be married or that you want to be free. If you choose marriage then expect some seriously unfair shit to happen to you, and not just about sex. That's the dirty secret, kids.
Because sex is important. Monogamy is about not sharing. It's a completely separate issue from whether you have sex at all.
I have to laugh at the people here making logical arguments about sex and monogamy. Stay married long enough and you'll find out how having logic on your side and being "right" count for exactly zero. Decide that you want to be married or that you want to be free. If you choose marriage then expect some seriously unfair shit to happen to you, and not just about sex. That's the dirty secret, kids.
50
Oh, and.....
@25: Don't make the mistake that I and many others have done, and bow down and agree that since it wasn't a problem for my low-libido partner, it must not be a "real" problem.
+100. I really thought it was "my issue" to work on. You are already - by cheating - seeing the bad impact this is having on you. It does affect your self-esteem - and low self-esteem does lead to cheating. I know this one first hand too.
@25: Don't make the mistake that I and many others have done, and bow down and agree that since it wasn't a problem for my low-libido partner, it must not be a "real" problem.
+100. I really thought it was "my issue" to work on. You are already - by cheating - seeing the bad impact this is having on you. It does affect your self-esteem - and low self-esteem does lead to cheating. I know this one first hand too.
51
@45: Logical constructions are not necessarily required to be reversible in order to be true.
High sex drive is compatible with both monogamy and non-monogamy. You can say that sex is important, and therefore have a lot of it, but still say that monogamy is important, so you end up having a lot of sex, but only with your partner. Or you can say that sex is important and constant rejection is soul-crushing, at which point extra-relationship sex is the alternative to terminating a relationship which is good in all other respects. These two points of view are not mutually exclusive, though the second is usually a court of last resort when the first is out of the question.
If it is a matter of a high-sex person not wanting the low-sex person to share with others, that isn't necessarily illogical either. If you have enough sex drive to seek outside partners, then you have enough sex drive to seek sex with me. If you claim to have no sex drive in order to avoid sex with me, but still seek sex elsewhere, you are a) lying to me about your sex drive, and b) using what little sex drive you have on someone else, when you could be doing that with me, and c) conspicuously leaving my needs unmet while you go get your needs met elsewhere, which is selfish and hypocritical.
A person who claims to be low-sex with respect to me, but wants other partners, isn't low-sex at all, they simply aren't interested in me. Why would I want to accept that as an excuse, and go without sex myself, while the other person is getting as much sex as they want elsewhere? Clearly in that case the problem is that the two of us are attached to the wrong person.
High sex drive is compatible with both monogamy and non-monogamy. You can say that sex is important, and therefore have a lot of it, but still say that monogamy is important, so you end up having a lot of sex, but only with your partner. Or you can say that sex is important and constant rejection is soul-crushing, at which point extra-relationship sex is the alternative to terminating a relationship which is good in all other respects. These two points of view are not mutually exclusive, though the second is usually a court of last resort when the first is out of the question.
If it is a matter of a high-sex person not wanting the low-sex person to share with others, that isn't necessarily illogical either. If you have enough sex drive to seek outside partners, then you have enough sex drive to seek sex with me. If you claim to have no sex drive in order to avoid sex with me, but still seek sex elsewhere, you are a) lying to me about your sex drive, and b) using what little sex drive you have on someone else, when you could be doing that with me, and c) conspicuously leaving my needs unmet while you go get your needs met elsewhere, which is selfish and hypocritical.
A person who claims to be low-sex with respect to me, but wants other partners, isn't low-sex at all, they simply aren't interested in me. Why would I want to accept that as an excuse, and go without sex myself, while the other person is getting as much sex as they want elsewhere? Clearly in that case the problem is that the two of us are attached to the wrong person.
53
"leave someone I am completely in love with"
The idea that a person can only be in "true wub" with someone once in a lifetime has absolutely ruined so many countless relationships.
The idea that a person can only be in "true wub" with someone once in a lifetime has absolutely ruined so many countless relationships.
54
addendum to 51: To clarify, if someone is suggesting non-monogamy as an option to get their own needs met, they should be open to letting their partner be non-monogamous as well. It would be hypocritical to demand that I get to sleep around but you don't.
But it is not wrong to want both more sex and also monogamy, nor to insist that your partner should make meeting your sexual needs top priority long before they consider spending sexual energy outside the relationship. (There is the argument that the outside contact might re-energize the sex inside the relationship. That shouldn't be dismissed out of hand, but there had better be a lot of enthusiastic money-where-your-mouth-is.)
But it is not wrong to want both more sex and also monogamy, nor to insist that your partner should make meeting your sexual needs top priority long before they consider spending sexual energy outside the relationship. (There is the argument that the outside contact might re-energize the sex inside the relationship. That shouldn't be dismissed out of hand, but there had better be a lot of enthusiastic money-where-your-mouth-is.)
55
This shit just pisses the hell out of me. It may not be an easy situation, but from where I sit it is a _simple_ situation. So much pain caused by such blatant foolishness.
If you are in a realtionship and you are not getting your sexual needs met, and your sexual needs are important to you, and your partner has so little respect for you that they will gladly make you suffer: GET THE FUCK OUT.
nuff sed
If you are in a realtionship and you are not getting your sexual needs met, and your sexual needs are important to you, and your partner has so little respect for you that they will gladly make you suffer: GET THE FUCK OUT.
nuff sed
57
"That you're even wondering if you have grounds to end a sexual relationship over issues of basic sexual incompatibility is evidence of how thoroughly you've internalized the sexphobia sloshing around out there."
This.
This.
58
@45 - Ah, but you seem to be assuming that "important" necessarily equals "should/must be exclusive." This is a unique social conceit when it comes to sex and we don't apply it to any other important relationship aspects. For example, it may be very important to you to have a partner with similar tastes in music, but would that necessarily mean that you can't listen to music with other people? Of course not.
59
@58: Well, to be fair, the stakes aren't the same, either. You aren't going to come home from a concert with the musical equivalent of herpes or a pregnancy. Sex is also bonding behavior (oxytocin is not to be trifled with) in a way that music is not. If there was a culturally established likelihood of coming home and saying "Honey, I'm leaving you for my piano accompanist" we would be a lot more nervous about sharing music outside the marriage.
60
@33: "Good sex can't save an otherwise emotionally unfulfilling relationship. But bad (eg unsatisfying for one or both partners) sex can destroy an otherwise healthy relationship. It's baffling how sex in our culture is overrated and underrated at the same time."
That's not so surprising, actually. It turns out our brains are hardwired to be five times as sensitive to unpleasant inputs as to pleasant ones. (Presumably this has something to do with heightening our problem-solving, in that unsolved problems in the wild can sometimes kill you. You really, really want to remember that this particular tuber made you deathly ill, or that rustling in the bushes is something that wants to eat you.) Thus the unpleasant input will always drown out the pleasant one.
If sex is good but the rest is bad, the bad rest will drown out the good sex. If the rest is good but the sex is bad, the bad sex will drown out the good rest. It's simply because we are way more sensitive to the bad stuff, whatever it happens to be.
That's not so surprising, actually. It turns out our brains are hardwired to be five times as sensitive to unpleasant inputs as to pleasant ones. (Presumably this has something to do with heightening our problem-solving, in that unsolved problems in the wild can sometimes kill you. You really, really want to remember that this particular tuber made you deathly ill, or that rustling in the bushes is something that wants to eat you.) Thus the unpleasant input will always drown out the pleasant one.
If sex is good but the rest is bad, the bad rest will drown out the good sex. If the rest is good but the sex is bad, the bad sex will drown out the good rest. It's simply because we are way more sensitive to the bad stuff, whatever it happens to be.
61
@17:
"Geez, how many different ways can you say "If your partner refuses to ever fuck you, leave without shame"?"
The same number of different ways you can say "you're a filthy pervert for having a higher sex drive than me, you evil slut", which is typically the attitude taken by society in general and the person with the lower sex drive in the relationship in particular. Especially if that person with the higher sex drive is female. In men, the higher libido is tiresome, bothersome, but expected.
"Geez, how many different ways can you say "If your partner refuses to ever fuck you, leave without shame"?"
The same number of different ways you can say "you're a filthy pervert for having a higher sex drive than me, you evil slut", which is typically the attitude taken by society in general and the person with the lower sex drive in the relationship in particular. Especially if that person with the higher sex drive is female. In men, the higher libido is tiresome, bothersome, but expected.
62
@56:
Here's another clue. The letter writer is neither married, nor even so much as sharing the same bed every day. It's called cutting your losses while you don't have much to lose.
Dan has *different* advice when the letter writer says "I've been married 10 years, we have 2 kids, a house and a dog, and my wife stopped having sex with me after the last kid was born 4 years ago, but I still love her very much". Quick recap: it is NOT "dump the motherfucker already".
Here's another clue. The letter writer is neither married, nor even so much as sharing the same bed every day. It's called cutting your losses while you don't have much to lose.
Dan has *different* advice when the letter writer says "I've been married 10 years, we have 2 kids, a house and a dog, and my wife stopped having sex with me after the last kid was born 4 years ago, but I still love her very much". Quick recap: it is NOT "dump the motherfucker already".
63
@56: So she should get married to her partner, so she can continue to not have sex with her?
That works so well!
That works so well!
64
I cast a vote for a moratorium on use of the verb "demonize" to describe people being pissed off at a partner who has cut off sex and has a shitty, you-deal-with-it attitude about it. It seems to come up every one of these threads and I, for one, am a little tired of it. It's just another way of saying that people who cut off the sex are right, and that people who are unhappy with it are being harsh and unfair ... in other words, more of the same denigration of normal desire that the refusing partner is engaging in.
66
Mr. J @ 56
Old enough to know that I am not the marrying kind, but I get your point.
I understand that once two people have made a life-long commitment, both parties should expect to take some serious knocks somewhere along those decades, and that a lasting bond requires compromise, forgiveness, and the ability to suck up significant periods of various kinds of pain.
That being said, in these situations [mismatched libido with the low-drive partener basically ignoring the well being of the high-drive partener [in a simple hypothetical wherein the HDP is not an asshole and alienating the LDP] yadda yadda] we are talking about a basic failure to care for the person one supposedly loves.
And it isn't about the sex. If my--imaginary--spouse demonstrated such calousness, over the course of years with no sign of ever changing, regarding my health, career, family, &c. I would see the same thing: it is no longer a loving partenership. Mourn and get the hell out.
Old enough to know that I am not the marrying kind, but I get your point.
I understand that once two people have made a life-long commitment, both parties should expect to take some serious knocks somewhere along those decades, and that a lasting bond requires compromise, forgiveness, and the ability to suck up significant periods of various kinds of pain.
That being said, in these situations [mismatched libido with the low-drive partener basically ignoring the well being of the high-drive partener [in a simple hypothetical wherein the HDP is not an asshole and alienating the LDP] yadda yadda] we are talking about a basic failure to care for the person one supposedly loves.
And it isn't about the sex. If my--imaginary--spouse demonstrated such calousness, over the course of years with no sign of ever changing, regarding my health, career, family, &c. I would see the same thing: it is no longer a loving partenership. Mourn and get the hell out.
68
@56, I'm 40. I've been married almost 11 years. There've been some long droughts for me, and I've stuck it out. Does that satisfy your requirements?
55 wasn't wrong. LW needs to leave.
55 wasn't wrong. LW needs to leave.
69
@62,63,66,68
I said this @32: "You're too young to settle down. Find someone better." Okay? So I'm not saying these two should get married.
What I am pointing out is the trivialization of marriage. See @49. Your marriage is temporary if DTMFA is a part of your personal philosophy. People who stay married do so in the face of great unhappiness at times. DTMFA is a glib attitude to take towards a lifelong struggle with another person. Your attitude will need to be much more along the lines of "it's almost unthinkable to quit."
Not getting everything you want, as well as ongoing unfairness, better be things you can make peace with. Your partner is going to have to make the same sacrifices to be with you and your personal failings.
I said this @32: "You're too young to settle down. Find someone better." Okay? So I'm not saying these two should get married.
What I am pointing out is the trivialization of marriage. See @49. Your marriage is temporary if DTMFA is a part of your personal philosophy. People who stay married do so in the face of great unhappiness at times. DTMFA is a glib attitude to take towards a lifelong struggle with another person. Your attitude will need to be much more along the lines of "it's almost unthinkable to quit."
Not getting everything you want, as well as ongoing unfairness, better be things you can make peace with. Your partner is going to have to make the same sacrifices to be with you and your personal failings.
70
@68 Ophian
Thanks. But I think we disagree about the process of marriage. Compromise is not something you do one day. Both of you have to recommit to it every day. That's incredibly hard. Being single is easy.
Marriage carries the cost of accepting unfairness from the person who loves you. You can characterize their behavior as callous and unloving and then use that as your get out of jail free card but then you've misunderstood the cost that you agreed to pay when you got married. You can divorce if you want to but I wonder how many divorced people really understood what they were getting into. They might do well to realize that they are, as you said, not the marrying kind.
Thanks. But I think we disagree about the process of marriage. Compromise is not something you do one day. Both of you have to recommit to it every day. That's incredibly hard. Being single is easy.
Marriage carries the cost of accepting unfairness from the person who loves you. You can characterize their behavior as callous and unloving and then use that as your get out of jail free card but then you've misunderstood the cost that you agreed to pay when you got married. You can divorce if you want to but I wonder how many divorced people really understood what they were getting into. They might do well to realize that they are, as you said, not the marrying kind.
71
I like your comment on marriage #49. My partner says this: "would you rather be right or happy?" Sometimes it is a fair question... sometimes it isn't, but truth is there regardless of the fairness.
72
In other words, we take on huge burdens and accept some unfairness if we marry. But no spouse can or should avoid Henry James' three rules for human life: the first is to be kind, the second is to be kind, and the third is to be kind. There's an awful lot of folks like the LW who are in marriages/committed relationships who deal with folks like her gf who say, in essence, "some unfairness is inevitable, so lump it".
Marriage carries the cost of accepting unfairness from the person who loves you.The problem isn't in that true statement. The problem lies in the fact that so many people, in being unfair, forget the corresponding and equally vital obligations of doing your best to avoid being unfair, and, if unfair, doing your utmost to end the unfairness as best you can.
In other words, we take on huge burdens and accept some unfairness if we marry. But no spouse can or should avoid Henry James' three rules for human life: the first is to be kind, the second is to be kind, and the third is to be kind. There's an awful lot of folks like the LW who are in marriages/committed relationships who deal with folks like her gf who say, in essence, "some unfairness is inevitable, so lump it".
73
@72, put alternatively: There's an awful lot of people who, on being selfish or unfair, want instead to talk about their partner's obligations to the relationship. And there's an awful lot of folks who post in threads that they're right to do so, sliding around the dickishness of the conduct to insist on the duties owed by the non-dickish.
74
@72,73 seeker6079
I agree. "Dickishness" is a real thing to watch out for. It can be hard to distinguish from "personal shortcomings" but you describe it well. Mrs. J exhibits some spectacular failings in maintaining our relationship but she does try within her limitations. It's hard to be objective about these things in the face of your own misery.
I agree. "Dickishness" is a real thing to watch out for. It can be hard to distinguish from "personal shortcomings" but you describe it well. Mrs. J exhibits some spectacular failings in maintaining our relationship but she does try within her limitations. It's hard to be objective about these things in the face of your own misery.
75
@70 "Being single is easy." Life's not fair, it's not easy, you pick your battles, and sometimes they pick you.
I like Sondheim's take on marriage:
You're always sorry
You're always grateful
You're always wondering what might have been
Then she walks in
And still you're sorry
And still you're grateful
And still you wonder
And still you doubt
And she goes out
Everything's different
Nothing's changed
Only maybe slightly rearranged
You're sorry-grateful
Regretful-happy
Why look for answers
Where none occur?
You always are
What you always were
Which has nothing to do with
All to do with her
You're always sorry
You're always grateful
You hold her thinking
I'm not alone
You're still alone
You don't live for her
You do live with her
You're scared she's starting
To drift away
And scared she'll stay
Good things get better
Bad get worse
Wait, I think I meant that in reverse
You're sorry-grateful
Regretful-happy
Why look for answers
Where none occur
You'll always be
What you always were
Which has nothing to do with
All to do with her
Nothing to do with
All to do with her
I like Sondheim's take on marriage:
You're always sorry
You're always grateful
You're always wondering what might have been
Then she walks in
And still you're sorry
And still you're grateful
And still you wonder
And still you doubt
And she goes out
Everything's different
Nothing's changed
Only maybe slightly rearranged
You're sorry-grateful
Regretful-happy
Why look for answers
Where none occur?
You always are
What you always were
Which has nothing to do with
All to do with her
You're always sorry
You're always grateful
You hold her thinking
I'm not alone
You're still alone
You don't live for her
You do live with her
You're scared she's starting
To drift away
And scared she'll stay
Good things get better
Bad get worse
Wait, I think I meant that in reverse
You're sorry-grateful
Regretful-happy
Why look for answers
Where none occur
You'll always be
What you always were
Which has nothing to do with
All to do with her
Nothing to do with
All to do with her
76
Mr. J @74
If we're going to be polite and reasonable about this then we will have failed the internet.
If we're going to be polite and reasonable about this then we will have failed the internet.
77
@75 EricaP
Thanks. So: not simple, not trivial, not the same today as tomorrow, not what you saw when you looked at it from the other side of so many years-- no indeed, never even saw it coming.
Thanks. So: not simple, not trivial, not the same today as tomorrow, not what you saw when you looked at it from the other side of so many years-- no indeed, never even saw it coming.
78
I’ve noticed the phrase “Notice that the lower libido person always gets their way” come up here a lot. And I just wanted to say that there’s a good reason behind that. Would you really want to have sex with someone that honestly doesn’t want be having sex? That isn’t enjoying it? Would you want to have sex with someone just because you shamed and pressured them into it?
Don’t get me wrong, some of these lower libido people are total jerks. Some don’t seem to care about their partner’s needs, they aren’t interested in trying to revamp their libido or opening the relationship, and they guilt their partners if they try to leave for the very understandable reason of mismatched sex drives.
At the same time, there’s also something wrong with constantly guilting and pressuring a lower libido person into having sex every time their partner happens to be interested. It’s equally uncaring, equally douchebaggy, and carries a dangerous nod in the direction of rape. If it really is a mismatch, they simply need to break it of BEFORE things get serious with no hard feelings. It’s the same as any other lifestyle conflict. Sometimes a compromise* works (such as in my relationship), and sometimes it doesn’t, but there’s no shame in just accepting that it’s a deal breaker. Let’s try not shaming either partner for their libido, ok? If the higher libido person can’t just magically push a button in their brain and lower their desires, the lower libido person can’t just push a button and raise them.
*The compromise may take the form of the lower libido person “helping out” their partner and trying to raise their desires a bit while the higher partner accepts that they won’t have quite as much sex as they’d like. It could also take the form of an open relationship, an “online open” relationship (sex chat and porn online is fine, RL sex with others is off limits), or other possibilities. Again, they should work out this compromise BEFORE marriage/kids.
More...
Don’t get me wrong, some of these lower libido people are total jerks. Some don’t seem to care about their partner’s needs, they aren’t interested in trying to revamp their libido or opening the relationship, and they guilt their partners if they try to leave for the very understandable reason of mismatched sex drives.
At the same time, there’s also something wrong with constantly guilting and pressuring a lower libido person into having sex every time their partner happens to be interested. It’s equally uncaring, equally douchebaggy, and carries a dangerous nod in the direction of rape. If it really is a mismatch, they simply need to break it of BEFORE things get serious with no hard feelings. It’s the same as any other lifestyle conflict. Sometimes a compromise* works (such as in my relationship), and sometimes it doesn’t, but there’s no shame in just accepting that it’s a deal breaker. Let’s try not shaming either partner for their libido, ok? If the higher libido person can’t just magically push a button in their brain and lower their desires, the lower libido person can’t just push a button and raise them.
*The compromise may take the form of the lower libido person “helping out” their partner and trying to raise their desires a bit while the higher partner accepts that they won’t have quite as much sex as they’d like. It could also take the form of an open relationship, an “online open” relationship (sex chat and porn online is fine, RL sex with others is off limits), or other possibilities. Again, they should work out this compromise BEFORE marriage/kids.
79
Just had time to read the rest of the comments, and it looks like some other people said similar things. I jumped on that line because I see it come up a lot, and it’s starting to get to me.
80
@69: "What I am pointing out is the trivialization of marriage. See @49. Your marriage is temporary if DTMFA is a part of your personal philosophy. People who stay married do so in the face of great unhappiness at times. DTMFA is a glib attitude to take towards a lifelong struggle with another person. Your attitude will need to be much more along the lines of "it's almost unthinkable to quit." "
I find that attitude emotionally abusive and harmful to someone in a codependent relationship.
I find that attitude emotionally abusive and harmful to someone in a codependent relationship.
81
@69
What you describe is the right attitude for making a marriage last.
But what if one of the spouses would have a much happier life after divorcing, instead of staying together? Should they live a sadder life in order to keep the promise they made? Assuming no kids are involved, assuming they're not leaving the dumped spouse in poverty or ill health.
Not asking a rhetorical question - really want to know what you think.
People who stay married do so in the face of great unhappiness at times. DTMFA is a glib attitude to take towards a lifelong struggle with another person. Your attitude will need to be much more along the lines of "it's almost unthinkable to quit."
What you describe is the right attitude for making a marriage last.
But what if one of the spouses would have a much happier life after divorcing, instead of staying together? Should they live a sadder life in order to keep the promise they made? Assuming no kids are involved, assuming they're not leaving the dumped spouse in poverty or ill health.
Not asking a rhetorical question - really want to know what you think.
82
@ 69, 70: I agree with # 80, your argument sounds to me a great deal like the kind of rationalization someone in an abusive relationship makes.
Being unfair at times is inevitable, but (as seeker6079 points out @72) your partner has an obligation to try their best to be fair to you. And we're not talking about run of the mill human-imperfection unfairness here, we're talking about depriving one's partner of the sexual attention that our species, as a whole, has a strong need for. Now you may in your case have decided that your sexual needs are less important than your attachment to your wife, or your fear of being alone, but it's rather unfair to project your personal decision onto other people
Many, even most, people consider their sexual needs pretty damn important - and those that do not often do not only because they've been shamed into it by lots of messages about how sexual desire is selfish and marriage is about sacrifice and divorce is failure and a lot of other co-dependent, sex-negative, self-destructive bullshit.
Once your partner turns out to be a MF, then DTMFA had better be a part of your philosophy if self-respect is also to be a part of your philosophy. You know what really trivializes marriage? The notion that commitment is more important than the quality of the relationship. I'm sorry, but I personally see no victory in successfully enduring an unhappy relationship. I see only tragedy and self-loathing.
Being unfair at times is inevitable, but (as seeker6079 points out @72) your partner has an obligation to try their best to be fair to you. And we're not talking about run of the mill human-imperfection unfairness here, we're talking about depriving one's partner of the sexual attention that our species, as a whole, has a strong need for. Now you may in your case have decided that your sexual needs are less important than your attachment to your wife, or your fear of being alone, but it's rather unfair to project your personal decision onto other people
Many, even most, people consider their sexual needs pretty damn important - and those that do not often do not only because they've been shamed into it by lots of messages about how sexual desire is selfish and marriage is about sacrifice and divorce is failure and a lot of other co-dependent, sex-negative, self-destructive bullshit.
Once your partner turns out to be a MF, then DTMFA had better be a part of your philosophy if self-respect is also to be a part of your philosophy. You know what really trivializes marriage? The notion that commitment is more important than the quality of the relationship. I'm sorry, but I personally see no victory in successfully enduring an unhappy relationship. I see only tragedy and self-loathing.
83
@73: There's an awful lot of people who, on being selfish or unfair, want instead to talk about their partner's obligations to the relationship.
Agreed, and all too familiar. Your primary obligation is to yourself. If you're miserable, the relationship is not working.
Agreed, and all too familiar. Your primary obligation is to yourself. If you're miserable, the relationship is not working.
84
@78: Some people very strongly need their partner into it. Some people don't. Some people even get turned on by their partner not being into it, or raping their partner, or manipulating their partner. This last group is best served by role-playing the fantasy, obviously.
85
@81 LiveAndLet
I don't elevate a promise made over a life of misery. People rightly divorce all the time. But any sort of glibness with regard to divorce is incompatible with sticking it out. If I can leave you all with one important concept it's that there is more misery to marriage than Hollywood would have you believe. Sex (and I'm talking about other issues too) is important but it's neither the only thing nor the most important thing. Marriage itself must be the highest goal of being married. If you elevate your complete sexual happiness over making your marriage last then it just will not last over the decades.
New rule: DTMFA applies only to casual dating relationships.
I don't elevate a promise made over a life of misery. People rightly divorce all the time. But any sort of glibness with regard to divorce is incompatible with sticking it out. If I can leave you all with one important concept it's that there is more misery to marriage than Hollywood would have you believe. Sex (and I'm talking about other issues too) is important but it's neither the only thing nor the most important thing. Marriage itself must be the highest goal of being married. If you elevate your complete sexual happiness over making your marriage last then it just will not last over the decades.
New rule: DTMFA applies only to casual dating relationships.
86
@82: I really hope that I have more than resignation to look forward to when it comes to marriage.
@85: " But any sort of glibness with regard to divorce is incompatible with sticking it out."
I'll take glibness over the past any day. "Glibness" was and is preferable to staying with emotionally abusive partners. People who glibly get married deserve to be glibly divorced and save themselves the misery.
You have a nostalgia for "the good days of marriage" that's completely devoid of reality or perspective.
@85: " But any sort of glibness with regard to divorce is incompatible with sticking it out."
I'll take glibness over the past any day. "Glibness" was and is preferable to staying with emotionally abusive partners. People who glibly get married deserve to be glibly divorced and save themselves the misery.
You have a nostalgia for "the good days of marriage" that's completely devoid of reality or perspective.
87
@85 Mr. J, thanks for the reply. I think I see what you're saying.
I suppose the reward for sticking it out would be the pride of accomplishment. For many, I hope, also a deep connection to another human being. Love. A lifetime of shared experience.
But I know that for some, marriage cuts them off from connection. Monogamy is a promise not to connect, on sexual and some emotional levels, to any other human being but your spouse. And if your spouse then cuts you off from the love and comfort you need... it seems like the only result of staying would be a lifetime of misery.
I'm certain that few people glibly divorce their spouses. That kind of connection runs deep, and it's heart-wrenching even to consider divorcing. But at some point the right thing to do is to muster one's resolve to leave, and DTMFA might be the right battle slogan for the campaign.
I suppose the reward for sticking it out would be the pride of accomplishment. For many, I hope, also a deep connection to another human being. Love. A lifetime of shared experience.
But I know that for some, marriage cuts them off from connection. Monogamy is a promise not to connect, on sexual and some emotional levels, to any other human being but your spouse. And if your spouse then cuts you off from the love and comfort you need... it seems like the only result of staying would be a lifetime of misery.
I'm certain that few people glibly divorce their spouses. That kind of connection runs deep, and it's heart-wrenching even to consider divorcing. But at some point the right thing to do is to muster one's resolve to leave, and DTMFA might be the right battle slogan for the campaign.
88
@ 85: No. No, no, no, no, no. DTMFA applies any time there is a motherfucker involved. What you are advocating, with your sentimental adherence to dangerous myths, is a recipe for abuse and misery - your own damn word. If marriage is an arrangement that overrides or excuses a judgment of motherfuckery, then the quicker that institution is abandoned the better.
89
"Complete sexual happiness" is a straw man. No one has expressed that expectation.
If the highest purpose of marriage is to sustain a relationship for decades regardless of the happiness or growth of its participants, then it is not a romantic ideal, it is slavery to no purpose except to sustain itself as an institution.
If the highest purpose of marriage is to sustain a relationship for decades regardless of the happiness or growth of its participants, then it is not a romantic ideal, it is slavery to no purpose except to sustain itself as an institution.
90
@87: "I'm certain that few people glibly divorce their spouses."
Right, and those who do, glibly MARRY their spouses. And when they fuck up, this bizarre rule of law about the "institution" of being married being challenged by divorce, fuck that idea.
The same arguments are used to combat against Gay Marriage, that it "devalues" the institution, which is sacrosanct and self-justifying. The worst straight marriage is better than the best gay marriage, or in his case, the worst straight marriage is better than the idea of divorce.
Right, and those who do, glibly MARRY their spouses. And when they fuck up, this bizarre rule of law about the "institution" of being married being challenged by divorce, fuck that idea.
The same arguments are used to combat against Gay Marriage, that it "devalues" the institution, which is sacrosanct and self-justifying. The worst straight marriage is better than the best gay marriage, or in his case, the worst straight marriage is better than the idea of divorce.
91
"Marriage itself must be the highest goal of being married."
You have some damaged priorities.
"Being married to someone you want to spend your life with" must be your highest goal. "Marriage itself" is ungrounded, and far more glib to me.
You have some damaged priorities.
"Being married to someone you want to spend your life with" must be your highest goal. "Marriage itself" is ungrounded, and far more glib to me.
92
I don't think that Mr. J is saying that the "worst straight marriage is better than the idea of divorce" or that people who are abused should remain married. Both of those ideas are reading too much, because he wrote that people rightly divorce and that he does not elevate promises over a life of misery. He also agreed with Dan that the LW needed to leave the relationship.
I interpreted his comment to be about shared goals, dreams, and building a life together and the compromise that is required. Successful long term LTRs seem, to me, to be rooted in a what is "good for us" attitude. When we are single we can live from a place of "if it is not good for me, then I can go", it a good attitude to have and it can help us know our limitations, boundaries, and goals. Successful LTRs require the shift from "this is not necessarily perfect for me, but it is good for us", and that shift from things always being good for the individual to being good for all parties can be hard. Dan describes it better than I, as the "price of admission". And, I think that Mr J, is saying that if you aren't in an LTR with a MF (Run from the MF!) then the attitude "if it is not good for me, then I can go" needs to be evaluated through the lens of is it "good for us" and does it promote those shared goals, dreams, and building a life together. I think his point is if you keep thinking "I can go if it isn't good enough for me", then when hardships come you won't be equipped to weather things, because mentally you have checked yourself out of the LTR.
This is just my $0.02. And, I know how difficult it is to tease out for individuals who are being abused, for those in codependent relationships. My years of working with domestic violence victims, mostly women, and a much smaller number of domestic violence perpetrators, continually illuminates how difficult and easily manipulated things can be between individuals. I sincerely don't think that Mr.J is promoting the idea that marriage is more important than the life of the individuals involved. I think he is pro running from MFs. He'll need to address that himself, though. And, as always, you're welcome to throw my opinion in the dustbin.
Take care.
More...
I interpreted his comment to be about shared goals, dreams, and building a life together and the compromise that is required. Successful long term LTRs seem, to me, to be rooted in a what is "good for us" attitude. When we are single we can live from a place of "if it is not good for me, then I can go", it a good attitude to have and it can help us know our limitations, boundaries, and goals. Successful LTRs require the shift from "this is not necessarily perfect for me, but it is good for us", and that shift from things always being good for the individual to being good for all parties can be hard. Dan describes it better than I, as the "price of admission". And, I think that Mr J, is saying that if you aren't in an LTR with a MF (Run from the MF!) then the attitude "if it is not good for me, then I can go" needs to be evaluated through the lens of is it "good for us" and does it promote those shared goals, dreams, and building a life together. I think his point is if you keep thinking "I can go if it isn't good enough for me", then when hardships come you won't be equipped to weather things, because mentally you have checked yourself out of the LTR.
This is just my $0.02. And, I know how difficult it is to tease out for individuals who are being abused, for those in codependent relationships. My years of working with domestic violence victims, mostly women, and a much smaller number of domestic violence perpetrators, continually illuminates how difficult and easily manipulated things can be between individuals. I sincerely don't think that Mr.J is promoting the idea that marriage is more important than the life of the individuals involved. I think he is pro running from MFs. He'll need to address that himself, though. And, as always, you're welcome to throw my opinion in the dustbin.
Take care.
93
@92: "I think his point is if you keep thinking "I can go if it isn't good enough for me", then when hardships come you won't be equipped to weather things, because mentally you have checked yourself out of the LTR"
That's not equipping you with mental protections, that's setting yourself up to "protect" an unhealthy and going-nowhere but down marriage.
I know I'm getting overly snippy here, but I've spent far too much effort in relationships that should have ended, and I've had far too many friends who have gotten trapped in joyless marriages because they feel obliged to "make it work".
Statements like "Marriage carries the cost of accepting unfairness from the person who loves you. You can characterize their behavior as callous and unloving and then use that as your get out of jail free card but then you've misunderstood the cost that you agreed to pay when you got married."
are valuing the "institution" of marriage over the parties involved. If he believes otherwise, he should really state things differently.
That's not equipping you with mental protections, that's setting yourself up to "protect" an unhealthy and going-nowhere but down marriage.
I know I'm getting overly snippy here, but I've spent far too much effort in relationships that should have ended, and I've had far too many friends who have gotten trapped in joyless marriages because they feel obliged to "make it work".
Statements like "Marriage carries the cost of accepting unfairness from the person who loves you. You can characterize their behavior as callous and unloving and then use that as your get out of jail free card but then you've misunderstood the cost that you agreed to pay when you got married."
are valuing the "institution" of marriage over the parties involved. If he believes otherwise, he should really state things differently.
94
@93 Most very long relationships (including parenting & friendships in that category) have times that are not very fun. If you walk away when you're frustrated, then you don't get past the painful parts to the parts that make a long relationship so worthwhile -- the trust; the love; the knowledge that this person has your back no matter what; the renewed hot sex that you never thought would happen. (Um, that last doesn't apply to the parenting/friendship relationships...)
On the other hand, if you're going through hard times and you believe things will never get better...Or if the evidence says that things will never get better... Or if all your friends and your AlAnon support system say things will never get better...
Then leaving is probably the right thing to do. But even then, if there was love between you once, it's not necessarily helpful to label your soon-to-be-ex-spouse a motherfucker. No matter how angry you are at the STBExS this year. Especially if you have children together and will thus be in each other's lives for a very long time.
On the other hand, if you're going through hard times and you believe things will never get better...Or if the evidence says that things will never get better... Or if all your friends and your AlAnon support system say things will never get better...
Then leaving is probably the right thing to do. But even then, if there was love between you once, it's not necessarily helpful to label your soon-to-be-ex-spouse a motherfucker. No matter how angry you are at the STBExS this year. Especially if you have children together and will thus be in each other's lives for a very long time.
96
To me, the discussion is simple (and one already often had in the past here). The LW says that the relationship is wonderful from all other points of view ('a relationship that is amazing on so many other levels', 'someone I am completely in love with', etc.). But clearly the LW isn't satisfied, since she has repeatedly cheated on her lover, and against her will.
So: LW says she loves this relationship, but she can't continue in it without sex. Two possibilities: (a) either the desire to have sex dies out if she waits long enough (or she simply gets used to a sexually unsatisfying relationship -- it's the 'price of admission', as it were), or then (b) it doesn't, in fact it slowly destroys all the other good and wonderful aspects of the relationship (the rejection destroys the LW's sexual self-esteem and her love for her partner, etc).
So, which one is going to happen? Which one is more likely-- (a) or (b)?
Most people here will go with their own life experiences of what they would or wouldn't be able to put up with, what they could or couldn't live without.
And the most interesting aspect is that there is no full agreement.
Which basically means that life is case-by-case. Some (non-asexual) people could put up with a sexually unsatisfying life and still find happiness in a relationship -- not all aspects of a person's soul need be developed for happiness to be achieved. We're always less than we could potentially be. And some others could not -- the lack of sexual validation, expression, and fulfillment was too degrading, too de-humanizing for them to be able to go on living as they were; they either became unhappy, broken individuals, or ended the relationship.
So, what's it gonna be, for the LW?
Well, I don't know. And frankly, neither does Dan, nor anyone else here, for sure.
Dan points out that the LW's partner is not being supportive -- the LW is suffering because her sexual deprivation, and yet her partner doesn't seem to feel the necessary empathy. He also points out that the LW has cheated repeatedly, which is a sign that she probably will again.
I will hope that her partner can change (since the LW's repeated cheating would indicate that she won't, i.e., she won't settle for a sexless relationship). I will hope that, if the LW has a sufficiently deep, open-hearted discussion with her partner, then said partner can be made to feel the empathy she should be feeling.
Or... that the LW can find the fortitude to accept the lack of sex as the price of admission to a relationship that she is so happy with in all other ways. Perhaps she can also do that? Only she can tell...
But I frankly don't know, because I don't know the two people involved, and the details of their personalities are indeed the most important factors here.
I wish Dan were right: that a sexual relationship could be simply ended by basic sexual incompatibility. It certainly would make the world and life a lot simpler. Alas, since no sexual relationships remain purely sexual, and since their goals quickly go way beyond achieving sexual satisfaction, this is often not true.
More...
So: LW says she loves this relationship, but she can't continue in it without sex. Two possibilities: (a) either the desire to have sex dies out if she waits long enough (or she simply gets used to a sexually unsatisfying relationship -- it's the 'price of admission', as it were), or then (b) it doesn't, in fact it slowly destroys all the other good and wonderful aspects of the relationship (the rejection destroys the LW's sexual self-esteem and her love for her partner, etc).
So, which one is going to happen? Which one is more likely-- (a) or (b)?
Most people here will go with their own life experiences of what they would or wouldn't be able to put up with, what they could or couldn't live without.
And the most interesting aspect is that there is no full agreement.
Which basically means that life is case-by-case. Some (non-asexual) people could put up with a sexually unsatisfying life and still find happiness in a relationship -- not all aspects of a person's soul need be developed for happiness to be achieved. We're always less than we could potentially be. And some others could not -- the lack of sexual validation, expression, and fulfillment was too degrading, too de-humanizing for them to be able to go on living as they were; they either became unhappy, broken individuals, or ended the relationship.
So, what's it gonna be, for the LW?
Well, I don't know. And frankly, neither does Dan, nor anyone else here, for sure.
Dan points out that the LW's partner is not being supportive -- the LW is suffering because her sexual deprivation, and yet her partner doesn't seem to feel the necessary empathy. He also points out that the LW has cheated repeatedly, which is a sign that she probably will again.
I will hope that her partner can change (since the LW's repeated cheating would indicate that she won't, i.e., she won't settle for a sexless relationship). I will hope that, if the LW has a sufficiently deep, open-hearted discussion with her partner, then said partner can be made to feel the empathy she should be feeling.
Or... that the LW can find the fortitude to accept the lack of sex as the price of admission to a relationship that she is so happy with in all other ways. Perhaps she can also do that? Only she can tell...
But I frankly don't know, because I don't know the two people involved, and the details of their personalities are indeed the most important factors here.
I wish Dan were right: that a sexual relationship could be simply ended by basic sexual incompatibility. It certainly would make the world and life a lot simpler. Alas, since no sexual relationships remain purely sexual, and since their goals quickly go way beyond achieving sexual satisfaction, this is often not true.
97
Marriage is a complicated institution, but mostly I've found it is an education about oneself. Even more than learning to adapt to another person, good and bad sides, unfair and fair things... marriage is about how you react in this situation, who you are, what you value, what you want more, what you can or can't live without.
Marriage is an education.
Marriage is an education.
98
@29,
"Though your comment about sex not being food sounds an awful lot like you think sex is expendable, in which case I sure hope your partner feels the same, or else you may be guilty of the same thing. Sex is not expendable unless both partners feel it is expendable"
Nope, I don't. To me, sex is important in a relationship. But, I have been on both sides of the libido pole -- it is very low when I am depressed. So I can empathize with SINS' girlfriend.
"Though your comment about sex not being food sounds an awful lot like you think sex is expendable, in which case I sure hope your partner feels the same, or else you may be guilty of the same thing. Sex is not expendable unless both partners feel it is expendable"
Nope, I don't. To me, sex is important in a relationship. But, I have been on both sides of the libido pole -- it is very low when I am depressed. So I can empathize with SINS' girlfriend.
99
Also, there shouldn't really be an assumption that "Sex is not expendable unless both partners feel it is expendable". In that case you're setting yourself up for trouble since not an inconsiderable number of people have low to nonexistent libidos. You have to talk to your partner early in a relationship... and bring up the issue early if it seems like their libido is taking a nosedive. Otherwise you know what they say, when you assume something, you make an ass out of you and me.
I do not think the "trivial" argument works. Sex is rarely just sex -- it comes with emotional ties for most people. So you could theoretically be not interested in physical intimacy but be wary of having your partner form such an emotional tie with another person.
It is simply a value judgment to say that that sort of desire -- a monogamous but celibate, or at least very sexless, relationship -- is inherently selfish.. For some people, that is what they WANT. For others, it isn't. Both the girlfriend and SINS are somewhat to blame. Both should have realized earlier that the situation was untenable and broken it off before the ultimatums and cheating.
I do not think the "trivial" argument works. Sex is rarely just sex -- it comes with emotional ties for most people. So you could theoretically be not interested in physical intimacy but be wary of having your partner form such an emotional tie with another person.
It is simply a value judgment to say that that sort of desire -- a monogamous but celibate, or at least very sexless, relationship -- is inherently selfish.. For some people, that is what they WANT. For others, it isn't. Both the girlfriend and SINS are somewhat to blame. Both should have realized earlier that the situation was untenable and broken it off before the ultimatums and cheating.
100
Is this the only question Dan ever answers anymore? Jeez, people. Everyone knows dans opinion on the no-sex-at-home issue, so please quit asking him! Dan, for the live of god, pick a different uestion already.
101
.....aaaand I'm back in town now.
@89
It's most certainly not a straw man. That premise oozes from every pore around here, and that's what I'm reacting to. The "institution" of marriage is a straw man with reference to any comments I've made here. All I've said is that marriage is a grave decision, as is divorce. That and the fact that if you've been married a long time or if you've know the intimate details of other people's long-term marriages then you know about the significant price to be paid for staying married. There's a nasty downside to go with the upside. This gets insufficient publicity.
"DTMFA" is a juvenile, snarky term that we use here, and it's fine for consequence-free internet comments about strangers in the same way that the horrible excuses for human beings that the characters on "Seinfeld" were entertaining. In real life, though, I still maintain that "DTMFA" is too glib to apply to marriage.
@89
It's most certainly not a straw man. That premise oozes from every pore around here, and that's what I'm reacting to. The "institution" of marriage is a straw man with reference to any comments I've made here. All I've said is that marriage is a grave decision, as is divorce. That and the fact that if you've been married a long time or if you've know the intimate details of other people's long-term marriages then you know about the significant price to be paid for staying married. There's a nasty downside to go with the upside. This gets insufficient publicity.
"DTMFA" is a juvenile, snarky term that we use here, and it's fine for consequence-free internet comments about strangers in the same way that the horrible excuses for human beings that the characters on "Seinfeld" were entertaining. In real life, though, I still maintain that "DTMFA" is too glib to apply to marriage.
Comments (101) RSS