@107. Fantastic. I see there as being two issues here, but issues which often crop up together:

1) Mismatched libidos;
2) Aversion to talking frankly about sex, conceding differences and brokering (and sticking to) solutions in an unromantic and un-sexy way.

The couple understood they were at odds over sexual frequency. But their communication may have been inconclusive, in that she thinks he accepted just often going without (as a quasi-POA) and he may (may; we don't know) have thought she was willing to turn a blind eye to sexting that couldn't lead to anything.

It's easy to say, 'well, you should talk about everything better; you should be fully explicit, lay everything on the table in the clear light of rationality', but some people can't, about sex. It's too difficult to give up the belief that love should make everything right and in itself, with commitment, lead to fulfilling sex. And some people cannot focus on sex with the front part of their brains (as it were)--their behavior and preferences are too instinctive, almost too hard-wired.

There are alternatives to being the sort of 'Californian' Savagista who is prepared to lawyer over every last urge, every last clause in an ENM agreement (not the night before a school play; not with the relative of anyone we've spoken to as a couple in the last three years, not three nights in a row on any work trip). It's being more moralistic about what constitutes cheating e.g. sexting definitely does; emotional affairs are just affairs, and in turn more forgiving of lapses. Either the relationship has run its course when a spouse discovers cheating, or she (he) forgives him. It might save a bundle in therapy fees.

Here, I think INCEST has to decide--maybe in three or five months' time, not now--whether to stay in the marriage or not. Perhaps they could both be happier with someone else? He with a frequent fuck, she with someone loyal and honest? If they stay together, she will decide whether to go down the therapy and reflection route, or the accepting contrition and granting forgiveness route. It's not clear to me that (for some people at least) strict morality, liberal forgiveness and deep memory holes aren't the way to go.

Zinaida @105, I apologise for that. I will try to be more Fox/Nocute.
I'm also a GenXer and despite being sadly still quite far from retirement, it's possible that I too could have been married for 30 years with kids in their 20s. Where on earth do the years go!?

Harriet @106, the context of that phrase "sexual neglect of her husband" is important. Both mentions were in reference to why Dan answered with a lack of sympathy. -To Dan-, her acceptance of their sexual frequency as -her- preferred frequency -- "very little" -- and no effort to increase it to meet in the middle, would have come across as neglect. In INCEST's mind, I'm sure it was not neglect at all, and indeed it must be looked at in the context of their relationship as a whole. (Why indeed should she make an effort to get in the mood if he wasn't making an effort to do more housework than he'd like, etc.) The point is that she recognises it may be a contributing factor to the point that she included it in her letter, and Dan seized upon it to argue that he has the right to meet those needs, ethically, elsewhere, which is of course what Dan would say.

Mrs Fox @107, good catch on the couples counselling. Perhaps, indeed, they came to this mutual understanding that they'd have "very little sex" openly and after discussion with a therapist who either didn't give Mr INCEST's needs enough weight, or perhaps he felt uncomfortable advocating for them -- demanding a spouse puts out when they don't want to isn't a good look. I have more sympathy for Mr INCEST if he did attempt to address this issue, only to get nowhere.

BiDanFan @104: I too reacted unsympathetically to INCEST, not only due to her tone, but that she expected Dan's jaw to drop over something that, in Canada (as pointed out @71), is considered perfectly normal. ;-)

@110. Bi. On the frequency-of-sex matter, Dan was victim-blaming. You could have been paraphrasing him.

It's not clear to me what actually went on. She saw hubby's requests for pics, not actual pics. Presumably coz drew the line at sending naked selfies. But they may have been fucking? He may have been fucking someone else? Dan's saying, 'oh, he did this to avoid fucking someone else. He loves you and wants to grow old with you', is, like the victim-blaming over frequency, another reading-in of one of his favorite tropes ('stay married and stay sane'; interpret faithfulness broadly so you can honor your commitments). It's not obviously right.

Alongside 'talk to an independent person, preferably a professional', the other advice I would give her is, 'find out the honest, unvarnished truth about what actually happened'. The danger the couple is in is that the truth never comes to light. Maybe she wants the reversion of the status quo and accepts from him a groveling apology and the statement it was texts only. This isn't true; and he resumes after a while, or he thinks he's gotten away with it and cheats more cruelly. Or he is overcome with guilt and does not come out with how, at a certain level, he thinks he was justified. And again he resumes, this time covering his tracks better. Or they make up without really talking about it, with her carrying resentment and the feeling he's in her debt into retirement, and he carrying ... who knows? A sense of entitlement? Relief at a close scrape? INCEST should take her time deciding on her course and insist on a complete, honest confession and painful discussion if they're staying together.

Ms Fan - yes, if I were forced to accept a brief for Hallmark (perhaps a little less likely than when Rumpole undertook his one and only prosecution because Hilda's old school friend Charmian Nicholls was so contemptuous of the Rumpoles' not owning a dishwasher), that the company assists in overdue breakups would be about the only point I could find to argue.
xxx
Ms Cute - I recall that letter, written about the same time as another about a clergyman in such very deep mourning that "either his mother, his wife or himself must be dead". I suspect stillbirths were not only more common but much less taboo - the third Elliot pregnancy ended in one that made it into the Baronetage. As for Mrs Musgrove, if it had stayed at her becoming much fonder of her son after his death, that would have been on the right side of the joke at the football players' funeral in Heathers, but skewering Mrs M because she was fat was something I've seen critics calling Miss Austen's greatest vulgarity, or something similar.

My most enduring memory of Ms Yoffe was her telling the same-sex engaged LW he must invite his homophobic uncle who'd voted against his right to marry in the state legislature to his wedding. That multiplied many faults and erased most virtues.
xxx
M?? Harriet - Deadnaming, I suspect, is perhaps just looking a simpler matter recently because our most recent public example kept the first three letters and made a relatively small change. For Mr Page or Patrick Califia, it's not a big jump. For Mr Lavery, Evan Urquhart or Renee Richards, to name a few, a firm line could be historically tricky, although I don't know that any one tack will be exactly right or that the best working protocol has been found. Then again, this is far more your area than mine.

INCEST- I'd say it's most important now to figure out what you want.. Do you want to try to heal from this together and grow old together still, or to try to be single again and maybe try to find someone else who might be a better match, especially sexually? If you want to stay married, it will be hard to trust your husband without a lot of talk about y'all's personal sexualities. What exactly does he need to feel satisfied with his sex life, without turning to others? Are you able to either accept that he's sexual with other women while married, or willing to let him try to seduce you into a sex life that he enjoys, too? The part that really struck me was that you still don't see your relationship as very harmonious, but you've thought that's OK because y'all attended counseling years ago and decided to stay married. It shouldn't be ok unless that's the sort of relationship that you both truly want. There is no standard amount of counseling sessions, they continue until there are no niggling problems, or until someone gives up on ever solving the problems.. Or until both think that they are working through their problems satisfactorily while unassisted, which doesn't seem to be the case here. Maybe he was never very happy and quit counseling prematurely, maybe he was happy for awhile and his mistake was neglecting to schedule counseling when he grew tempted to sext his cousin. It's odd to say that y'all finally decided to grow old together in the middle of your marriage. I expect spouses to say they decided to grow old together so they got married, and kept deciding they wanted to grow old together until now they weren't so sure, if they are thinking about divorce.

So first order of business, decide between working on the marriage or divorcing, consult divorce attorneys and counselors and trusted friends and family as you decide whether to try a new marriage with him, or to depend only on yourself as you look for a new marriage altogether. Because I want you to get past this point of trying to resurrect your old marriage habits and the trust you used to have, it didn't work as well as you had hoped it would, no use denying the truth.

Ps A lot of people would consider your husband to be monogamous if he never had sex with anyone but you. And you both seem mature and brave and in love, to go to marital counseling together.

HABIT- If your brother truly loved his last bf, he would want him to be happy, not to stay in an unhappy relationship. If he is more used to awful relationships like this unrequited love bit, then he probably needs some help showing respect for others. When we are dumped, it helps to get to the point of being proud that we behaved respectfully and sincerely as partners, but we were attracted to someone who was not so consistent and self aware, so this "tragedy" is actually a gift, our chance to find someone who is a better match for us and more equally respectful and sincere/self aware/committed. And control freaks with little respect for others obsess over "the one(s) that got away" from their manipulations.

NNTBHNC- Details please! And thanks Erica for the concrete ideas, vibes and anal beads and working with adjacent nerve groups. I think that a sense of humor on both parts would help too, so long as no one felt disrespected.

Mrs Fox, "I have wanted to ask Dan for about 20 years now how one stuffs things down the memory hole. It sounds a blessed ability to have."
I guess it's the same as "get over it" or "grow up" or those unrealistic phrases that tell people to feel something other than what they feel. Pitiful really, thanks for pointing it out, I hadn't really noticed before because the phrase is so funny. Dan has a lot of funny AND wise moments, too, though.

@113. venn. The 'unique author' of something in public life should not have to be someone with the same name. Databases should accommodate name changes.

The name I go by is a gender-neutral diminutive or slight displacement from my birth name. It's a name more typical of a child or pet than an adult, and people who don't like me, who are dismissive of my expertise, whom I've rubbed up the wrong way somehow or another, etc., tend to say it in a dispirited manner, or with a down-at-the-mouth or slightly defeated expression, as if to say, 'and now we have to listen to the advice of [...]'.

Philo @115, I find "stuff it down the memory hole" to be a generally humorous phrase, too. And it works great for situations like accidentally stumbling across a roommate's dildo drawer or your mom's lingerie. It seemed a wildly inappropriate response to someone who is grappling with the recent discovery of a possible infidelity (or actions that are at least infidelity-adjacent).

Mrs Fox, "it works great for situations like accidentally stumbling across a roommate's dildo drawer or your mom's lingerie".
Maybe to acknowledge that we don't want to be controlling and realize that others are entitled to their sex lives whether they are sexually attractive to us or not.. As a sign we are grappling with our own intolerance.. To tell someone else to forget about their experiences, that they are too fragile to deal with reality, seems as intolerant and dismissive as telling someone to grow up and get over (their uncomfortable feelings). To be fair, Dan suggested that she may want to choose to try to stuff the sexting down her memory hole if she likes the marriage enough otherwise to accept her husband's continued sexting, which isn't so mean.. But I don't see why her husband has to sext if she's willing to keep working on their sex life and start negotiating with the aid of a counselor again, if she's open to be seduced into the sort of sex life that they could both enjoy without resentment. And if she agreed to the sexting after the fact, and to just try to ignore her resentment, how would she know if he didn't suddenly need sex workers or a full blown mistress to compensate for their infrequent sex, after this bad surprise, if his resentment wouldn't flare up into more dishonesty or sex problems? If she didn't address this dishonesty, why would this sort of behavior end? I don't see why she'd choose to stay in the marriage if his sexting and dishonesty makes her feel insecure and turned off to the point they can't address their problems. She doesn't sound perfectly respectful or diplomatic, but it sounds like she is pretty honest, so she should be able to land that sort of mate. But it doesn't sound like their marriage is doomed if they still express love for each other and are willing to try counseling again, if she decides to try and find a new, better agreement and then forgive, that sounds reasonable too.

"Maybe try to stuff it down your memory hole? That's what I'd do, because I'd feel awful too, but I see no other ethical way to address it" seems fine, while "it's not a big deal, since it wouldn't bother me, so just stuff it down your memory hole" sounds really disrespectful and intolerant.

@107 Fantastic
"I have wanted to ask Dan for about 20 years now how one stuffs things down the memory hole. It sounds a blessed ability to have."

For about 30 years now I've thought that Dan has a strength that helps empower people and readers. Sometimes (the way he feels about dogs for just one example), I don't know I'd want to switch places, and I've wondered if he (like I think I am in ways) is in some ways on the spectrum. But I read Dan as much as anything for the things he tells people that sound more difficult to me than he articulates them to be; the strength he models in getting over heartbreak, for example.

M?? Harriet - It may work reasonably well with authors or performers, though there are trickier areas where it is not yet clear how far/deeply to retcon. We'll see what protocols emerge.

@100: WA-HOOOOOOOO!!!!! Major congrats to BiDanFan on scoring this week's Big Hunsky honors! Savor your amazing good fortune and bask in the envied glory. :)

@102 & @104 BiDanFan: In my family, I am the youngest of the Boomers. Leave it to the U.S. Census Bureau to offer me a chance for having the last laugh---I'm still in the same age bracket with my much older sibs whether they like it or not. So much for my being a "dumb kid".The Baby Boomer generation spans 20 years, from 1944 to 1964. I made the cutoff year; had I been born in 1965 I would be among the first of Gen Xers.

@86 The Fantastic Mrs. Fox: Agreed with @74 nocutename. I enjoy your comments, too, and hope you'll stick around. Agreed and seconded: no blocking needed for me, either. Scrolling works just fine. :)

Phi @114: "So first order of business, decide between working on the marriage or divorcing." I don't think that's the -first- order of business. I think that's a decision that should be consciously put off until she can work through these issues dispassionately. The first order of business, I would say, would be to get some perspective on this. Meet with a therapist perhaps, or does she have a trusted, non-family, bestie she can spend the weekend with? (Since she's ignoring covid restrictions anyway.) Take some time to process this. Talk with the husband, and really listen. Think about what he did and how bad it really was, not just in the context of what he could have done (cheated for real) but in the context of their entire marriage. Since she likes "very little" sex, it seems to me her most realistic options are continuing a marriage with this man or spending her retirement single -- which isn't necessarily a bad thing. Which is her preference? But that's a decision that should be taken only after thorough analysis and communication.

"A lot of people would consider your husband to be monogamous if he never had sex with anyone but you." That is the generally accepted definition, yes. One question is, was the husband actually cheating? He says no, the cousin says no, but can she trust them? That's another thing that makes sexting, in my mind, worse than cam girls or strippers: the likelihood that it could lead to or is accompanied by a physical affair. Dan chose to address this by advising her to believe them, but I think she has reason to investigate this further and trust her gut.

Phi @118: " "it's not a big deal, since it wouldn't bother me, so just stuff it down your memory hole" sounds really disrespectful and intolerant." Agree. If she decides to stay married, they will have to put it behind them, sure. But this won't be so easy as forgetting about lingerie or dildos. It will take work from both of them. And a frank discussion of what she will and won't accept as libido relief on his part. If they continue a sexual relationship, it seems unlikely she can meet his drive. They can agree that porn and masturbation are OK outlets for him, but that no third parties should be involved, or set limits on who is "safe" for sexting. Dan seems to think the cousin is "safe" but INCEST obviously does not. If she has always got on well with the cousin and believes they haven't been physical, she could choose to accept this quasi-relationship if it means he doesn't sext anyone else -- and they don't see each other in person. Or if she does want "very little" sex, she could round that down to zero and they could retire companionately and he could sext, or sex, whoever he wants.

Thanks, Griz @121!

Still on with the boomer hating. Guess this London lockdown is hard.
Boomers stood up to the oppressions against homophobia, and after the 50s, everything was locked down, straight and suburban. Must I waste time writing a list of firsts, forceful groups smashed thru.
Only have to mention the music and that period is ions ahead in creativity and the abilities to actually play instruments. Many of us have stayed true to taking less from the world, living communally.. started by the hippies remember... staying self sufficient in the bush.
/ What I’d like to know, is, have I reached some deeply deluded state, because I pick up younger men are hitting on me. Now, if I was a man, gay or straight, or other.. a person with a loved and functional cock... they would know if such signals are reality.

Where’s a modern Bob Dylan, Joni Mitchell. The Beatles Rolling Stones, The Who. Jimmy. Janis. etc etc etc Those were the days..

Apologies re ‘functional’ @ 125. Trying to include all gets me flustered, and my meaning was: a man, with a cock, would not suddenly think the mind going if a younger person hit on them. As a woman, with a vagina, I’ve been socially trained to disbelieve such signals are real, that I’m deluding myself.

Throwing off gender specific socialisation, boomers began this trend. It’s evolved over these decades, to multiple expressions of self. The many freedoms now, were forged by the baby boomers.
Civil Rights, much courage shown by many to confront the ugly face of small town racism.

@ 98: "Couples can have a pact of silence. And they can each interpret silence in a way that suits their priors . . . We could know just what they said to each other about sex (type and frequency) and still not understand how far he made clear that he had an intractable need she was not fulfilling."

True words. Indeed, they might have understood it themselves.

Edit @129: I meant to write: They might NOT have understood it themselves.

BDF, I agree that it may not be easy to decide to work on forgiveness and let go of resentment from something like an affair, and also that she should give a lot of thought to the problem before giving up on her whole marriage, if that's how she's leaning.. that's why I suggested consulting professionals and trusted advisors in the meantime. It sounds like she wants to stay but go back to the way things were before he started sexting, but she doesn't know when that started or how to prevent him from doing it again, and it's really up to him to start to make agreements that he can keep without resentment or acting out like this. She could stay while behaving equally faithlessly, while searching for Mr Next (not a great way to find a new spouse).. she could talk it through until she thinks he can keep their agreements without resentment or bad surprises this time (he agrees to channel his frustration into seducing her and listening to what turns her on and she agrees to assist masturbation or find some porn she'd watch with him or something 'easy' when she doesn't want to be seduced).. she could decide to give up on him and look for someone who is as honest as she is about sex and has similar expectations of frequency (for instance it should be pretty easy to find a man who is thrilled by regular sex once or twice a week and doesn't feel resentful and pine for daily sex until he hits on someone else). And I guess she could try to forget about the way he hurt her and resign herself to accepting his cousin-sexting and whatever else he does to cope with his libido and try to live without any sexual agreements, although that sounds like a recipe for her resentment and acting out in the future, it sounds like she cares about their sex and sexual agreements but just wants something different than his cousin-sexting. She cannot turn back the clock and get the marriage she thought was working well, because it actually wasn't working for him, and his response of cousin-sexting did not work for her.

I guess I disagree that it's hard to find a lower libido man, it seems like the libido spectrum is similar in both genders, to me. Both men and women seem to want sex every day or other day when it's new and good, then once or twice a week when the novelty wears off. I like it more frequently, and most of the men I've met have expected it less frequently. It's really frustrating when they expect that I will do it as often they would like without trying to meet my higher libido too, that's why I emphasized that it's not enough to advocate for herself and keep him from pressuring her for more sex, he also has to advocate for himself until she is trying to ensure that he is happy with their sexual agreements too or he'll get resentful and act out or leave. Hopefully she can encourage him to advocate for himself in counseling, to her face instead of behind her back. And working on her own respectfulness and diplomacy never hurt anyone, either to proudly leave or to determine to grow a better marriage.

Plus, asexual men exist and I don't think they are very high in demand, if she would prefer a sexless relationship it may make more sense to try to land a similar mate for the next couple decades instead of worry about whether her husband will fall in love with a mistress. I don't think she's unlikely to couple again just because she has a low libido, even if she's asexual, unless she doesn't really value partnership anymore. My grandmother was tired of partnership after nearly 70 years of marriage and doesn't want to date since her husband passed, that seems OK too, since she still enjoys a lot about her life.

Happy Mardi Gras Sydney: Australia: The World.

I think Millennials must be more prudish about Sexton’ Cousins than Gen X because it was a total OH HELL NO for me (if it’s real). I come from a state with a small founding population, so we’re often interrelated. A guy who tried to get me to be his side piece turned out to be a likely distant cousin. (3rd or 5th estimated.) grossed me out more than his being attached, and I’m childless NYT choice. Just a stroooooong taboo for me.

Lava- many boomers are recognized for their work as well as laying the ground for future generations. (One should also note that some of them were not that involved, and some opposed and rejected changes.)
As it often happens things keep moving and shifting. A more nuanced gender expression as well as different types of relationships and preferences are closer nowadays to mainstream and likely to be accepted easier then the way they may have been viewed some 50 years ago. I believe it is in this context that boomers were mentioned in our current discussion.
Boomers and none should not take this as an attack on an entire segment of population, nor as a proof of ignoring and cancelling plenty great achievements.

Many boomers continued as before, CMD. No counterculture for them. Twin sets @ college. Like today, many sail on past the sub cultures generated, which flare and fade with each generation.

There were many many of us, no stereotype fits all.

Yes, re relationship structures changing, evolving over time. I’m all for it.
The prevalence of low grade porn didn’t exist so readily for the men, and overall my experiences were with considerate lovers. No weirdo moves and demands five seconds in. And pushing against the ingrained patriarchy of 50s reared men, was a hard slog.
Great to see and read modern men and the attitude/ behaviour shifts which have occurred over time.

In terms of this thread, I’ll confess not to catching much of the verbiage. Cousin love has gone on forever, bit suss, to some. Not something to go ape shit over.

Except for those paired up, who knows how relationships will look after this horror pandemic is subdued. Trauma reverberates.

Aren’t you a tail end boomer, CMD? And most here middle age. Do you know what this generation experience. My early 20s son says the dating scene has been closed down. That’s here in Oz where the virus, for now, has been subdued. Not all will feel this, enough that any do. This will change how these young people grow into their full maturity.
Western culture is fluid, gender is fluid. Look at the wigs and pretty clothes men of old wore. Trying to define it all, to me, interferes with that fluidity. General categories, sure. Gender is on a continuum. Super masculine men all the way to Super feminine women. Nature involved here along with culture. And we mix it up.
Tolerance for difference, is the aim. Allow others freedom of self expression, in dress in their sex and in their relationships. And all this is changing, especially as more people don’t breed. Because it’s the work done with breeding, which can sharply shift perceptions.

Good to see you, cbu. Hope you going ok.

Lava @ 141
While in agreement on some of your points we may differ on others.
To start with, I think some cultures have been historically more tolerant to gender expression than western culture.

The dating scene is out for everyone, not only for younger folks, and I suspect youngsters are adopting easier to all kinds of online interactions.
Also, let’s not forget that plagues and long wars have devastated humanity all along and the kids of those days managed to go on with their lives. What we are witnessing nowadays is certainly limiting and annoying, but nothing on the scale past disasters.

Looking at my own children and their generation, I think they actually have an easier time finding partners because of the specific ways they can define themselves and communicate with others.

Not having children is another choice but isn’t necessarily a deterrence as more children nowadays are raised by same sex parents and families with differing arrangements and dynamics.

Happy International Women’s Day! to all my sisters. Womanhood is a noble calling.. and I hope we all find safety and peace. Especially my trans sisters, strength to you. And other minority women, I read Asians are being targeted. Strength to you all, around the world.
We Will Prevail.

@144 LavaGirl: Amen. Agreed and seconded. Big cyberhugs, positrons, and VW beeps to you and all my sisters in honor of International Women's Day! :)

How's hungry for double prizes found only here in Savage Love Land as this week's Double Whammy @169 (Lucky @69 + the Big Hunsky @100 = The Double Whammy @169) draws nigh......tick...tick...tick...

Phi @131, I don't know anyone who'd describe sex once or twice a week as "very little." "He wanted a lot of sex and I was content with very little" -- these sound like opposite ends of the libido spectrum to me. I don't think she will be happy if the solution to this is to have a lot of sex that she doesn't want, to encourage him to make advances whenever he's horny. To a low libido person, how annoying that would be. She may try having sex a bit more often, but that's still going to leave him horny a lot of the times she is not. If I had a high-libido partner, I would not feel happy being expected to "lend a hand" every time he wanted to masturbate. I think if meeting in the middle were a possibility, they would have worked that out long ago. And she wanted "very little" sex 30 years ago -- I hardly expect her, at 60ish, to find the desire for twice-a-week sex now. (This is also why I don't put much faith into her finding a new relationship -- few men are content with very little sex, and at her age she isn't exactly spoiled for choice. If she breaks up with him, she should accept that any new relationship will happen against the odds, and prepare to build a life around her children, future grandchildren, and hobbies, not finding a new man to not have sex with.)
An ace guy could be a good choice. But I really don't think we are talking about a twice-a-week libido. How many dozens of letters do we get from men whose wives think once a month is plenty? Or less? If I were fucking my husband twice a week and he still had a sext affair, in the context of a monogamous relationship, it would be a DTMFA.

I agree that going back to the way things were isn't a good strategy, because things were not good for him, she just didn't know it at the time. They cannot turn back the clock and they shouldn't. They shouldn't return to a past of not communicating -- or not effectively communicating. Nor should she embark on a future of sex slavery. If she's effectively asexual, she should admit that and work out a framework in which he can satisfy her needs without her.

If she does go it alone, an asexual man might be a good choice. My mother divorced in her... late 50s I guess, and has been happily single since.

#

Final point which I touched on but will now flesh out: What about the cousin? The comments have revealed that sexting is no big deal to men, but indicative of an emotional affair to women. The cousin is a woman. Is this an emotional affair to her? She has had "many ups and downs," which I took to mean a chaotic life. Is she in a vulnerable place, and is he, unwittingly perhaps, taking advantage of that? Is the cousin attached? Husband should be told he may have been playing with her heartstrings to get his jollies, another reason he should have stuck with porn or cam girls.

no sympathy for INCEST. sure, she's hurting. but she put her husband on a sex starvation diet. yeah, well... when you do that to your spouse, shit happens.

@147 BDF
"He comments have revealed that sexting is no big deal to men, but indicative of an emotional affair to women."

IJWTS that I'm not on team "sexting is no big deal". I just don't think it's on the same level as fucking.

And I don't consider INCEST a reliable witness. I wouldn't be surprised if it's not actually sexting, but facetious.

@147 BDF, the cousin's "ups and downs" jumped out at me a bit too. Is she leaning on INCEST's husband for an undue amount of emotional support? What exactly are both Mr. INCEST and his cousin getting out of this? The letter also mentions noticing flirtatious behavior between them when the now-in-their-twenties children were little. So how long has this been going on?

And whether or not the two of them consider it "cheating" per se, they both knew it was wrong enough to keep the LW in the dark about it. Whatever they want to call it, they knew it was inappropriate.

Re: differing libidos and what constitutes "little sex," I'm reminded of that scene in Annie Hall where Diane Keaton and Woody Allen's characters are in split screen at their respective therapists' offices. Both therapists ask how often the couple is having sex. Diane Keaton's character says "constantly! Like three days a week!" Woody Allen's character responds, "never, like three days a week!" I imagine INCEST and her husband probably find themselves in this quandary, only communicating even less effectively about their sex life than a couple in a Woody Allen film.

Philophile @114 - agreed that it would be nice if NNTBHNC had mentioned what worked for him, fleshing out how his partners "have gone out of their way" to ensure he still has great orgasms. And hope NotHard @38 comes back sometime to tell us about their experiments.

I think you're completely right that it helps to have a light approach and not get too hung up on the results, so that one can try something a couple of times before deciding if it's worth coming back to or not.

Also, I don't necessarily think sexting = cheating, as long as everyone involved is on the up and up. But they are monogamously married, and sexting folks on the side was clearly never part of the conversation (and here's hoping they have many brutally honest conversations from here on). What ruffled me about Dan's initial response was that the LW is clearly in pain and feeling cheated on, but Dan's immediate response was "no, you weren't cheated on." Upon re-reading Dan's response, I think he was trying to assuage some of INCEST's concerns, but went about it in a way that read dismissive of her experience and perceptions. Perhaps "emotional affair" is too strong a term (Mr. INCEST and cousin may have zero emotional component going on), but the LW is feeling solidly betrayed regardless of anyone's intentions, and it seems unfair to tell her that what she's going through isn't that big a deal.

Mrs Fox @150, while Mr INCEST might not describe himself as wanting "a lot" of sex, he would probably agree that his wife wants "very little." We don't know how much they mean but we do know it was enough of a disparity to be a significant issue, and that it was resolved, basically, in her favour: "Accept very little sex as my price of admission." She may have been right that he accepted this, but she was wrong that he was, or could ever be, content.

Mrs Fox @152, no, sexting isn't cheating, but it is inappropriate if your relationship is defined as monogamous. And whether it’s an “emotional affair” I guess depends on whether you define horny as an emotion. How wrong sexting is depends on the circumstances. Personally I would be far more hurt by what's happening with Mr INCEST and his cousin -- an ongoing flirtation between people who are close to each other and who have the opportunity and, it would appear, motive to cheat -- than with a partner occasionally dusting off a Tinder account and doing some flirting with randoms, and dropping them if they started asking to meet. She wasn't wrong to see this as a potential threat to their marriage. I think Dan minimised her concerns because she had exaggerated them, to such comedic effect.

And if a monogamous partner were going to keep a Tinder account active for such purposes, best to be above board about it. That way there are no nasty surprises like INCEST had.

I wanted to comment on the "stuff down the memory hole" side conversation that started up around @115 or a little bit earlier. Apologies if I miss some related comments after, but I think I'm out of time to read comments for the day. Boo.

Anyway, for me that phrase makes a certain amount of sense. I interpret it to mean "choose not to aim your attention at this" vs "lean in". For me, those are 2 useful skills I apply to various things. For example, if something bad but minor happens (stranger has road rage at me but there is no accident), when I was younger I would have found that unsettling for some time, but now if thoughts about the incident pop up during the rest of the day, I turn my attention to something else, and eventually I forget about it. That's what I think of as "stuffing down the ole memory hole": choosing not to think about, and eventually just losing track of it. The opposite is leaning in. If I break something that has sentimental value, I find it's best to give myself some time to feel bad about it, the amount of time being relevant to how important the thing is. Feeling it at the beginning allows me to later choose to not spend a lot of time feeling bad about it for a long while later. Related example: if any of you have ever had a good meditation class, you may hear something like: "if you find your attention wandering to your grocery list, that's ok, but return your attention to your breathing."

So, for INCEST herself, I think it's probably too much to start with turning her attention away from this. That's not reasonable. There's too much emotion going on already for that. I would think a bit of leaning is actually a better place to start, and then as other commenters (Mrs Fox? Philophile? and others) suggested, decide what she wants: break things off vs forgive and build something new/different, and once decision made: then, turn her attention away from it... ie... yeah stuff down the old memory hole. Just my two cents.

BDF, "If I had a high-libido partner, I would not feel happy being expected to "lend a hand" every time he wanted to masturbate."
There's no reason it should happen every time he wants to masturbate, but once or twice a week would bring them the average amount of sex in long term marriages by expanding the traditional idea of sex, and she also likes full penetration sometimes too, so he'd be getting more than the average amount of sex in their marriage, and that may be enough for him to be happily monogamous. Yes, it seems she has a choice between trying to provide more sex or outsource some sex/sexting, but I think most monogamous people would prefer to make out with their partner and play with their balls/boobs while they masturbate a couple times a week, rather than deal with affairs. Choosing either compromise is not slavery.

Maybe you don't consider once or twice a week to be "very little" sex because you have multiple lovers and can call on the next if you want more, but it seems like "very little" to me if I'm monogamous and that frequency is not a temporary dip, and all we can do is guess because she wasn't explicit. Neither a high libido or low libido person is in the wrong, no matter how high or low their libido, they are entitled to ask for what they want no matter what their preferred frequency is, people are just different. He was wrong to accept a sexual agreement he apparently couldn't keep, I disagree that she "starved him for sex" and is to blame for his cheating because she has a lower libido. Cheating is bad and no one is "forced" to stay in their relationship and cheat. Blaming her for having the lower libido and ignoring the cheating problem doesn't make anything better, it just prolongs a situation that sounds unhappy for them both. Instead of assigning fault, I think they have a sex problem and I hope she can help to solve it:

If she is grossed out by her husband's masturbation and the idea of making out or letting him eat her out while he masturbates or other relatively easy maintenance sex, and also hates the idea of affairs, maybe she would be happier being single, or looking for a lower libido (if she'd prefer once a week or so) or asexual or casual (if she'd prefer once a month or less) lover. I hope she can calm down and make the best decision for herself. Then I agree that she should start working on the path she chose rather than dwelling in the past.

Phi @156: "Maybe you don't consider once or twice a week to be "very little" sex because you have multiple lovers and can call on the next if you want more"

Hahahahahahahaha! Oh, how I wish! Pandemic, remember? And even before that, that really wasn't how it worked. I had a life, I had hobbies. My "multiple lovers" do not all live in the same country as me, and they also have other partners and commitments. Two dates a week and I reckoned I was doing well.

My last cohabiting, monogamous partner was a once-a-week guy. He kindly made the effort to increase this to twice a week, to meet me in the middle. Never would I have described that as "very little" sex. "Less than I would have ideally liked," sure. I agree everyone has their own definition but most people's is somewhere along the lines of "less than I would like to be having." This woman describes -her own- interest in sex as "very little," so unless some Woody Allen has gaslit her into thinking twice a week (as you say, average) is unacceptably low, I don't think anyone would describe -their own- once- or twice-a-week drive as "very little." They'd think of themself as normal, would they not?

If she insists that he involve her whenever he is horny, that will quickly get tedious for her, is the point I was hoping to make. She will need to accept his taking his libido elsewhere, and they need to decide what form that elsewhere takes and also that he must have some privacy once he has agreed to mutually acceptable guidelines such as "no one we know personally," whatever makes her comfortable while not being unduly restrictive.

I also disagree that "she is to blame for his cheating." Firstly, he didn't cheat; people who do cheat have themselves to blame, not their partners. Even if the partner does go off sex completely, a person should communicate and either seek an open relationship or split up; cheating is rarely justified. Secondly, she didn't make him sext his cousin, but she is guilty of being naive about her husband's sexual needs and his ability to just ignore them because she was not horny. There is a difference. Both of them are to blame for not communicating effectively, and both of them communicating effectively now is the only way they can hope to fix this.

@146: "How's hungry for double prizes found only here in Savage Love Land..." I meant "Who's"
Arrrrgh!! Jesus--why do my most glaring typos occur when Griz hasn't touched a single drop of alcohol? Good thing I bought more red wine yesterday.

Is everyone already gearing up for Dan's latest Savage Love column installment for this week?
Happy FIRDT! vying, everybody! :)

Luluisme @155 discussed her strategy of turning her attention elsewhere when thoughts pop up afterwards about "something bad but minor" that happened, like a "stranger has road rage at me but there is no accident."

I agree we can learn to redirect our thoughts, and that meditation provides training in conscious redirection.

Regarding road rage, I wanted to share a suggestion I saw about aggressive drivers -- now I just picture that they're in a huge rush to take a shit, and it's so much easier to laugh and not have it bug me all day.

EricaP @159: Ha! Great strategy for dealing with aggressive drivers. :)

BDF, thanks, I better get where you're coming from now, when you guess that she must have a smaller libido than once or twice a week.
"They'd think of themself as normal, would they not?"
Unfortunately my experience with men is that they can call 3 or 4 times a week excessive and mean to ask for, even illegal sexual pressure to simply say I wanted more, so maybe it's easier for me to imagine that a higher libido guy convinced her that once or twice a week is a pittance and reason for him to hit on others, and why the Woody Allen quote seems unfortunately common rather than an example of his gaslighting her by calling their normal frequency "barely any sex".

"He kindly made the effort to increase this to twice a week, to meet me in the middle"
But it's harder for me to understand why you thought that it would be sex slavery to agree to try more sex than she wants, and that she needs to open her marriage even though she seems to care a lot about monogamy. Your previous cohabitating partner chose to be open to more seduction rather than opening your relationship, and you don't describe him as a sex slave or a victim of "tedium". It seems you were happy with a little more sex, rather than insisting on opening the relationship since his libido was lower, I'm just not sure why you don't think she can do what your ex did. I still think it's a valid alternative to giving him permission to get involved with other women.

"she is guilty of being naive about her husband's sexual needs"
I usually blame failure to communicate on both the talker and the listener, unless one shows that they expressed themselves clearly or listened carefully.. Since she said this was talked through in therapy, where ideally both are held responsible for listening to the other, I blame him for letting her believe that the sex status quo would work for him. Unless she called off the therapy or refused to go back.. whoever first refuses or unilaterally cancels therapy (and more impartial discussion) is failing to communicate reasonably, imo.

Erica, that's an awesome alternative to road rage. I also prefer to frame things compassionately too, or at least pity those who don't behave very kindly. I imagine that bad drivers are rushing to the hospital, or have malfunctioning cars they are trying to get to a garage.. I am always happier when I remember that I don't have to deal with rude strangers regularly, that I get to walk or drive away unlike their family and coworkers and any friends they can maintain.

Erica @159 - yes! perfect. I have a goto thought post road rage that helps me but is probably not as funny. My kid has a book she got a couple years ago called something like Hush Now Banshee, and its a counting book in which the Banshee character keeps bothering all her friends by being very loud and excited. Anyway, Banshee, is not understanding why her normal to her yelling voice is not working for others and when she's wandering around alone at one point she shrugs to herself:
"Well they sure seem angry, but who knows why."
And I always say that to myself in a funny tone of voice after someone is inexplicably mean, and it cheers me up.