my wife won't have sex with me
|
|
Thread rating:  |
soochullee - 08 Jan 2009 05:24 GMT It's about 11:00 at night in the midwest and I'm writing to a blog because I'm lost, hurting, confused, depressed and more adjectives that Webster's doesn't have. I'm a 26 year old Christian guy who like most am facing a painful subject. Lack of sex in my marriage, I have been married 3 years nearing 4 in May and can honestly say I've made love to my wife less than 100 times in three years. We've talked about it many times before and she knows that it is a problem but still nothing changes. I'm hitting a six month stretch since the last time and by last time I mean one time. Not even a night of passion maybe an hour's worth and that's it for six months. I've prayed and done all I could think of and have read on. i've had sex with my wife three times in the last 12 months. I've read online blogs where people go on long stretches but there over 50 years old. My wife and i are 30 and 26 years of age with no kids. We have privacy and time. Just no desire. I've been sweet, I've been loving, I've demanded, I've begged, I've wished, I've prayed, I can't live in a relationship where sex is nothing. It's painful.
Last night was a painful thing for me lol. My wife got home at about 8:00 at night. She said she was tired and wanted to be cuddled and held. I refused. She pouted and said that i should hold her etc. we went to bed and I gave in. I was affectionate and held her and cuddled her like she wanted. I just can't refuse her when she needs affection.
We've talked on the subject before and I'm just so angry and tired of trying to initiate and being shot down. I'm the dumb dog with the shock collar on and just can't understand why I can't cross the lawn.
Someone please reply with a comment of truth
bill.lee007@yahoo.com - 08 Jan 2009 08:06 GMT Kat - 08 Jan 2009 08:45 GMT > It's about 11:00 at night in the midwest and I'm writing to a blog > because I'm lost, hurting, confused, depressed and more adjectives [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Someone please reply with a comment of truth A comment of truth?? Oooh kay...
Let me get this straight... If you say you've been married a little less than 4 years, but in 3 years the sex has been less than 100 times? I don't know who keeps track of those kinds of things but...3 years is a little less than 1100 days. 180 or so of those days in 3 years are probably what many women feel as "off limits" where they are menstruating. That leaves a little less than 920 days in 3 years. That is an average of about one day with sex in every 9 or so days. You said, though, something about 3 times in the last 12 months. So let's take a year off, and 3 times of sex, so that's more like saying in 3 years, there's been 100 times of sex but the last year was only 3 times. That gives me, using quick math in my head, 730 days in 2 years (since we're excluding the last year as there's only been 3 times) take away 180 or so days of menstruation and that's 550 days that are more likely for sex... For an average of sex every 5ish days, excluding this last year but including 2 years before. That doesn't seem like poor you being so neglected sexually...
Xorra - 08 Jan 2009 12:37 GMT >> It's about 11:00 at night in the midwest and I'm writing to a blog >> because I'm lost, hurting, confused, depressed and more adjectives [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > every 5ish days, excluding this last year but including 2 years > before. That doesn't seem like poor you being so neglected sexually... First, your math is all screwy and wrong, and second, while it's common enough for sex to be more frequent at the start and then get less frequent as time goes on, it's not at all typical for there to be a 6 month stretch of no sex in less than four years. My husband and I have been together 20 years, have almost divorced, including me moving out for awhile, and we've never even come close to a 6 month sexless stretch.
Soochullee, how is your marriage otherwise? Are you happy? Is she? Do you think she could be suffering from depression? When you talk and tell her how hard it has been for you, what does she say? Do you think she'd be willing to talk to a doctor about the problem? A counselor? A priest or preacher?
And if the frequency of sex doesn't improve, what are you willing to do? Will you resign yourself to this life forever? Seek sex outside the marriage? End the marriage? It's worth thinking about this, because she needs to understand how important this is to you.
Xorra
Erin - 08 Jan 2009 13:06 GMT > >> It's about 11:00 at night in the midwest and I'm writing to a blog > >> because I'm lost, hurting, confused, depressed and more adjectives [quoted text clipped - 66 lines] > > Xorra I am amazed at the presumption that Western culture has about marriage. Marriage is not about sex every night. And anyone who thinks so, may indeed need a doctor to explain the social aspects of this union and the phases and alterations that any couple goes through.
Erin
Doug Anderson - 08 Jan 2009 15:32 GMT (snip)
> I am amazed at the presumption that Western culture has about > marriage. > Marriage is not about sex every night. What a strange response.
First, there is no set of rules about what marriage is about.
Second, when someone is unhappy about having sex 3 times in the last year, why would you try to denigrate him by telling him "marriage isn't about sex every night?"
SamIAm - 08 Jan 2009 15:59 GMT > (snip) > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > year, why would you try to denigrate him by telling him "marriage > isn't about sex every night?" I was thinking the same thing!!!
Michael A. Ball - 08 Jan 2009 16:53 GMT >> What a strange response. >... >I was thinking the same thing!!! So was I! I laughed out loud, when I read, "What a strange response."
________________________ Practice safe eating - always use condiments.
Erin - 08 Jan 2009 17:06 GMT > >> What a strange response. > >... [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > ________________________ > Practice safe eating - always use condiments. Sex is a private matter between two people; marriage is a social institution. Personally, I do not believe marriage counselors should intrude into such private affairs; nor do I think the DSM has done a proper thing in including sexual behaviour (frequency or homosexuality) as part of the therapist's job, unless the rights of the SO are imposed upon, e.g. rape, or abuse.
Erin
Doug Anderson - 08 Jan 2009 17:12 GMT > > >> What a strange response. > > >... [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > as part of the therapist's job, unless the rights of the > SO are imposed upon, e.g. rape, or abuse. Again I find this sort of bizarre.
You think marriage counselors should stay out of private matters?
What is the point of having a marriage counselor then, I wonder?
OK - maybe you think marriage counselors are a bad idea altogether. What if a couple has marital problems they are unable to solve on their own? Why wouldn't they go get help?
And finally, none of this explains confusing "no sex for 6 months" with "wanting sex every night."
Erin - 08 Jan 2009 17:22 GMT > > > >> What a strange response. > > > >... [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > You think marriage counselors should stay out of private matters? I think they should stay out of sexual matters-- that may be the domain of a doctor in cases of sexual disorders.
> What is the point of having a marriage counselor then, I wonder? Personally, I would prefer a lawyer or a physician if I need counselling in marital abuse, child abuse, or health problems.
> OK - maybe you think marriage counselors are a bad idea altogether. > What if a couple has marital problems they are unable to solve on > their own? Why wouldn't they go get help? They are not children; surely they got married with some adult ideas in mind, and can solve their problems in a like manner.
> And finally, none of this explains confusing "no sex for 6 months" > with "wanting sex every night." A doctor might be good. But some people have a naturally higher sex drive than others, or according to hormonal changes (e.g. pregnancy), or stressful times in their life, or lack of harmony or conflict. A counsellor may be helpful if he or she enters the relationship intimately, and sleeps or lives with the couple to see what is wrong. Otherwise, it is an academic exercise.
Erin
Doug Anderson - 08 Jan 2009 17:27 GMT > > > > >> What a strange response. > > > > >... [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > counselling > in marital abuse, child abuse, or health problems. But the OP is not having any of those problems.
> > OK - maybe you think marriage counselors are a bad idea altogether. > > What if a couple has marital problems they are unable to solve on > > their own? Why wouldn't they go get help? > > They are not children; surely they got married with some adult ideas > in mind, and can solve their problems in a like manner. Perhaps they can. And yet they haven't. So at some point whether they "can" or not, if they haven't solved their problems, the _adult_ thing is to get help.
The _non_ adult thing is to continue without trying to solve the problem, or to give up.
> > And finally, none of this explains confusing "no sex for 6 months" > > with "wanting sex every night." > > A doctor might be good. Do you think a doctor could help you stop confusing "no sex for 6 months" with "wanting sex every night?"
That is your issue, not the poster's.
Michael A. Ball - 08 Jan 2009 18:08 GMT >...I think they should stay out of sexual matters-- that may be the >domain of a doctor in cases of sexual disorders. Erin, I am pretty sure that most sexual problems are mental--not physical. I've heard/read that more than a few times. This is a good point to note that poor technique can cause physical/mental complications. Sadly, there is a fair chance that's how this problem began.
I endorse a thorough physical exam. If nothing is discovered, that pretty well puts the problem in the domain of the counselor/therapist. Doesn't it?
>...Personally, I would prefer a lawyer or a physician if I need >counselling in marital abuse, child abuse, or health problems. For now, we don't know of any health problems, and the abuse victim seems to be the OP.
>... >They are not children; surely they got married with some adult ideas >in mind, and can solve their problems in a like manner... Oh, Erin, please, don't even think like that. Being old enough to be adults doesn't guarantee anything. The OP admitted withholding cuddling, at least once, for selfish reasons. That's not love, and it is not maturity. And before anyone takes a shot at me, yes, the OP is in a tough situation and I can easily see why providing cuddling would be repulsive sometimes. However, sometimes we must go above and beyond!
________________________ Whatever it takes.
Erin - 08 Jan 2009 18:15 GMT > >...I think they should stay out of sexual matters-- that may be the > >domain of a doctor in cases of sexual disorders. [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > ________________________ > Whatever it takes. Well, it's a *touchy* subject for sure. :-)
Erin
Stephanie - 08 Jan 2009 17:25 GMT >>>> What a strange response. >>> ... [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Erin In what way do counselors intrude when a couple or person goes to them for help?
Michael A. Ball - 08 Jan 2009 17:38 GMT >Erin wrote:...
>> Sex is a private matter between two people; marriage >> is a social institution. Personally, I do not believe >> marriage counselors should intrude into such private >> affairs...
>In what way do counselors intrude when a couple or person goes to them for >help? Picky, picky, picky. I know what you mean. Its not an intrusion, when you have an invitation, is it. :-)
___________________________ Don't sweat the small stuff--and most of it is small stuff. :-)
Erin - 08 Jan 2009 17:41 GMT > >>>> What a strange response. > >>> ... [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > In what way do counselors intrude when a couple or person goes to them for > help? I don't know personally, but I consider it something that two people know about each other because it is a close thing, that nobody else knows as much, including counsellors. That's just my opinion.
Erin
Michael A. Ball - 08 Jan 2009 18:33 GMT >...I don't know personally, but I consider it something that >two people know about each other because it is a close >thing, that nobody else knows as much, including counsellors. >That's just my opinion. "Close"? Unfortunately, in multiple ways, they're becoming more distant each day.
Things aren't always the way that seems logical or reasonable. No sort of intimacy guarantees a good sex life: it is more than intimacy. Just look at how primitive, unsophisticated and lacking sex is among teens!
My wife had many, many times the sexual experience, at least partners, that I've had. You'd think she'd know everything about sex, right? Well, it wasn't so. Our physical relationship progressed in a way that left her seeing sex as a new experience.
I'm not bragging. Essentially, I put her needs first; helped her discover things about her self; and pushed her in ways that were new.
It is possible the OP needs some guidance in technique. I can't say.
________________________ Percussion: a masterful mix of speed, force and finesse.
Erin - 08 Jan 2009 18:59 GMT > >...I don't know personally, but I consider it something that > >two people know about each other because it is a close [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > ________________________ > Percussion: a masterful mix of speed, force and finesse. Hmmm; well some people have very high standards.
Erin
Stephanie - 08 Jan 2009 19:05 GMT >> ...I don't know personally, but I consider it something that >> two people know about each other because it is a close [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Well, it wasn't so. Our physical relationship progressed in a way > that left her seeing sex as a new experience. There are SOOOO many possible ways in which sex can be made complicated by experiential factors. I had a long string of really aholish boyfriends before I met my now husband. I kinda bought the hype that all men are aholes. Men are to get, not to like. Sex was one element of that weird thing known as dating. One notable thing about a.sholes. They univerally suck in bed. (I mean that statement very tongue in cheek. As one of the leaders of the anti-generalization crusade, I recognize that my statement is amassive generalization and is almost certainly not true.)
Add to that Catholic guilt. Add to that sensations ranging from discomfort to pain, occaisional degradation that comes with dating a.sholes. What a mix up!
> I'm not bragging. Essentially, I put her needs first; helped her > discover things about her self; and pushed her in ways that were new. One thing I have always said about DH, he never pushed me. DH will say anytime he sought to nudge me, I jumped in. :) But in the early days, my being comfortable was of paramount importance. The rest followed.
But in general, not knowing what is going on with the OP, I think the opportunity for any numner of other factors that need to be dusted off and examined is good.
> It is possible the OP needs some guidance in technique. I can't say. > > ________________________ > Percussion: a masterful mix of speed, force and finesse. Michael A. Ball - 08 Jan 2009 19:23 GMT >>... Essentially, I ...pushed her in ways that were new.
>One thing I have always said about DH, he never pushed me. DH will say >anytime he sought to nudge me, I jumped in. :) But in the early days, my >being comfortable was of paramount importance. The rest followed. Exactly! The rest follows.
Please, don't think I was callous, forceful or anything like that. I wasn't. It was always gentleness that did the magic.
As an example, during certain stimulation, she used to be afraid that she was about to pee in the bed. I assured her that would be fine, but it never happened. As a result she learned to enjoy more and more. "The rest followed."
Stephanie, considering your early experiences, its a wonder you even gave sex a second chance. Unfortunately, I fear many women have similar experiences.
________________________ Whatever it takes.
Stephanie - 08 Jan 2009 19:42 GMT >>> ... Essentially, I ...pushed her in ways that were new. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Please, don't think I was callous, forceful or anything like that. I > wasn't. It was always gentleness that did the magic. I know. That was sort of the comparison I was making.
> As an example, during certain stimulation, she used to be afraid that > she was about to pee in the bed. I assured her that would be fine, but [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > gave sex a second chance. Unfortunately, I fear many women have > similar experiences. Ugh. You have no idea. BUT. I had some positive assets in my camp too. My Mom and Dad were really, really happily married. True love and all that. Even as the youngest child in a house in which sex was never spoken, it was easy to tell that an active sex life was part of the package. What WAS demonstrated enough to be seen I think seeped in.
> ________________________ > Whatever it takes. Michael A. Ball - 08 Jan 2009 17:48 GMT >...Sex is a private matter between two people; marriage >is a social institution. Personally, I do not believe [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >as part of the therapist's job, unless the rights of the >SO are imposed upon, e.g. rape, or abuse. Erin, no argument here: sex is a private thing. But what else do distressed couples do, except seek outside help? If they lack the mental/emotional resources between them, what other choice do they have?
I see you make some exceptions, and I can't help noting that the OP's rights are being "imposed upon." We don't have much information, but I'm not sure his wife isn't being abusive--even if unintentional.
I'm not up to speed on the DSM. I hasten to acknowledge that some counselors/therapists are absolutely dangerous. ________________________ Experience is something you don't get--until just after you need it.
Erin - 08 Jan 2009 18:05 GMT > >...Sex is a private matter between two people; marriage > >is a social institution. Personally, I do not believe [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > ________________________ > Experience is something you don't get--until just after you need it. I don't think counsellors are dangerous. I have no idea what they would say if sex is a problem in marriage. I would say, that there are phases, and waves in a marriage or living-together situation. I would say, wait until both people feel healthy, make sure you don't burn out with work (we are a nation of workaholics), or find a private means which does not interfere with the union -- such as legalized prostitution. If it is not the load of the work in the marriage that is the problem, but actually that you don't love the person anymore, the decent thing to do is divorce. Sex is not necessarily an expression of love, but if sexual and emotional attachment is there but not for your spouse anymore and somebody else, then I think the marriage is over, unless you want to keep a mistress like Prince Charles until the right opportunity comes up. Otherwise, I think like many other things in marriage, e.g. how much attention is paid to the kids, how often a vacation is taken, how much house maintenance there is, entertainment, family parties, work crises, etc. fluctuate and are to be expected as a natural course of married life.
About the DSM -- yes, they still have some Freudian archaisms about sex, especially for women, but i thin homosexuality is now removed from the pathology list.
Erin
Michael A. Ball - 08 Jan 2009 18:14 GMT >...I don't think counsellors are dangerous. I have no idea what they >would say if sex is a problem in marriage... I really enjoy discussing things with you, but I need to wait before saying much here.
Anyone who doesn't believe some counselors are dangerous is naive and at serious risk. Does each one of us here have equally good advice, expressed equally well, etc.? No--and neither do all counselors.
As for what they would say about a sexual problem, read the questions Xorra asked.
I'll be back. :-)
________________________ Whatever it takes.
Erin - 10 Jan 2009 13:02 GMT > >...I don't think counsellors are dangerous. I have no idea what they > >would say if sex is a problem in marriage... [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > ________________________ > Whatever it takes. About counsellors being dangerous-- only in the sense that they do not collaborate with physicians when there is a health problem. Often there is a medical problem or a drug problem, and some counsellor may be smart enough to look up the information that is easily available. But if they don't speak to the patient's doctor about it, they may be leaving out pertinent information and stray on the wrong path. I think doctors and counsellors should cooperate. But maybe just the doctor knows exactly what is going on and a counsellor is not necessary in such cases, or necessary if given information about the medical problem. Even then, I doubt the counsellor can do much as he/she does not deal in medical treatments. But I suppose they could be sympathetic.
Erin
Michael A. Ball - 08 Jan 2009 20:43 GMT >I don't think counsellors are dangerous. Well, I don't have as much left to say as I'd thought. As you know, there is good and bad every where. I consider some counselors dangerous, and here is an example of why. Many years back, my wife agreed to meet with her ex-husband and his counselor--for the good of their children.
The counselor advised her to spend more time communicating with the man, spend more time in the presence of the children. Guess what/ The ex-husband had never made any mention of how he had burned, tortured and brainwashed my wife. I was so infuriated that it was only my wife's intense urgings that kept me from reporting that counselor.
For the record, I acknowledge that there are counselors who are at the other end of the spectrum: super!I have no idea what they
>I have no idea what they would say if sex is a problem in marriage. Look at the many questions that have been posed to the OP. They are just the tip of the iceberg, when it comes to what we need to know about the OP, his wife and their relationship.
Because we're all human, certain principles apply somewhat universally. However, because we are all different, it sometimes takes a lot of probing, to get to the root of a problem. Sometimes, the problem will look like one thing, but turn out to be something very different.
When a 30 year old person lacks a strong sex drive, something is really wrong! Someone mentioned that the OP's wife might not know what is wrong. That is such an important observation. It is very possible that she isn't aware of what is wrong, or can't explain it, for some reason(s). I feel sad for both of these people.
>I would say, that there are phases, and waves in a > marriage or living-together situation...find a private means which >does not interfere with the union > -- such as legalized prostitution. Granted, there are "phases," good and bad times, etc. Do my eyes deceive me!? You advocate "legal prostitution?" Beyond a health card, what difference does the "legal" label make? Its still sanctioned infidelity. That seems like the wrong direction, to me.
_______________________ Play with fire! Zildjian drum sticks
Doug Anderson - 08 Jan 2009 20:52 GMT > >I don't think counsellors are dangerous. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > brainwashed my wife. I was so infuriated that it was only my wife's > intense urgings that kept me from reporting that counselor. I'm sorry, I'm having trouble seeing where the counselor went wrong here.
Given that she was meeting with the counselor and her ex, why didn't _she_ mention this?
Counselors are no more mind readers than anyone else. If their clients withhold vital information it is hard to blame the counselor for giving poor advice. In this case your wife had information that she should have shared.
> For the record, I acknowledge that there are counselors who are at the > other end of the spectrum: super!I have no idea what they [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > When a 30 year old person lacks a strong sex drive, something is really > wrong! Why? Or maybe "How do you know?"
Why can't sex drives just be like many other characteristics: they vary from person to person?
What _I_ think is wrong is that the disparity is harming the marriage. That may or may not be fixable. Possibly there are changes which could make the wife more interested in sex, possibly not.
> Someone mentioned that the OP's wife might not know what is > wrong. That is such an important observation. It is very possible that > she isn't aware of what is wrong, or can't explain it, for some > reason(s). I feel sad for both of these people. This I absolutely agree with.
But I don't think the assumption should be going in that there is something wrong with a 30 year old with a low sex drive. There _might_ be. There might not be.
Michael A. Ball - 08 Jan 2009 23:05 GMT ...
>> The counselor advised her to spend more time communicating with the man, >> spend more time in the presence of the children. Guess what/ The [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >I'm sorry, I'm having trouble seeing where the counselor went wrong >here. The counselor advised putting a very vulnerable person into a working situation with her former abuser/husband! Aside from all sorts of verbal/emotional abuse, he had put out cigarettes on her. He used to make her listen to Pink Floyd's "The Wall" through a headset, while he said things like "I am your god." through a microphone mixed in.
That is how the counselor went wrong. Even with a chaperone, she would have been at great risk.
>Given that she was meeting with the counselor and her ex, why didn't >_she_ mention this? It was *his* counselor. He surely brought back memories of their divorce judge, who believed the lying witnesses her ex-husband had brought into court. So, why would this counselor believe her?
Sitting in the presence of a man who had abused her so badly for years, how can you expect her to have the courage to condemn this monster--on his turf in front of his defender.
>Counselors are no more mind readers than anyone else. If their >clients withhold vital information it is hard to blame the counselor >for giving poor advice. In this case your wife had information that >she should have shared. Why would this piece of human waste admit that he'd been an abusive monster. He wasn't in counseling to get well: he needed a certificate to stay out of work! And yes, it would have been great, if she'd had the courage to reveal this monster, but Rome wasn't built in a day. Their divorce was only a few months back.
>> When a 30 year old person lacks a strong sex drive, something is really >> wrong! [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Why can't sex drives just be like many other characteristics: they >vary from person to person? Touche. I shouldn't have made it sound like an absolute. Generally, but not universally, 30-year-olds have a strong sex drive.
___________________________ Don't sweat the small stuff--and most of it is small stuff. :-)
Doug Anderson - 09 Jan 2009 03:51 GMT > ... > >> The counselor advised her to spend more time communicating with the man, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > The counselor advised putting a very vulnerable person into a working > situation with her former abuser/husband! But the counselor can't be expected to know that her husband was her former abuser if your wife didn't tell her that.
Again: counselor is not the same as mind reader.
> Aside from all sorts of > verbal/emotional abuse, he had put out cigarettes on her. He used to [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > judge, who believed the lying witnesses her ex-husband had brought into > court. So, why would this counselor believe her? Are you saying your wife told the counselor about her former husband's abuse and the counselor didn't believe her? Because that _would_ be a problem if the counselor didn't at least take such a charge seriously.
But if your wife didn't tell the counselor at all (which is the impression you've given me so far) then you can't fault the counselor for not knowing this.
> Sitting in the presence of a man who had abused her so badly for years, > how can you expect her to have the courage to condemn this monster--on > his turf in front of his defender. I have no way of knowing whether that is a reasonable expectation.
I think it is unreasonable to blame the counselor for not reading your wife's mind through.
> >Counselors are no more mind readers than anyone else. If their > >clients withhold vital information it is hard to blame the counselor [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > courage to reveal this monster, but Rome wasn't built in a day. Their > divorce was only a few months back. If you are trying to convince me that your wife had good reasons to withhold information, you are succeeding.
If you are trying to convince me that the counselor did wrong by not reading your wife's mind, you are failing.
> >> When a 30 year old person lacks a strong sex drive, something is really > >> wrong! [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Touche. I shouldn't have made it sound like an absolute. Generally, but > not universally, 30-year-olds have a strong sex drive. Yes, I agree with this. (Subject obviously to the fact that people
Michael A. Ball - 09 Jan 2009 20:30 GMT >> The counselor advised putting a very vulnerable person into a working >> situation with her former abuser/husband! [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Again: counselor is not the same as mind reader. I don't expect anyone to be a mind reader. However, a couple usually gets divorced because of a serious problem. The counselor should have asked my wife, in private, if there were any reasons why she would be ill advised to meet with the maniac she had divorced.
>Are you saying your wife told the counselor about her former husband's >abuse and the counselor didn't believe her? Because that _would_ be a >problem if the counselor didn't at least take such a charge seriously. I am certain she made no mention of his abuse; certainly not with him sitting there! After 30+ years of being told that you are of no value; having your children taken in a divorce, because his witnesses lied under oath, she did not feel that she had a chance of being considered credible. Therefore, she never tried to speak for herself.
Because getting custody of her children was paramount, she was willing to meet with this monster, but not strong enough to let the counselor know how horrifying it would be.
>But if your wife didn't tell the counselor at all (which is the >impression you've given me so far) then you can't fault the counselor >for not knowing this. "First do no harm." Granted, she was not the patient.
The counselor was reckless and inept, but you don't have to take my word for it.
________________________ Whatever it takes.
Erin - 08 Jan 2009 20:59 GMT > >I don't think counsellors are dangerous. > [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > difference does the "legal" label make? Its still sanctioned infidelity. > That seems like the wrong direction, to me. Your wife was tortured? I am so sorry to read this; i see your point, but that must have been coercion to go the counselor and tell, under the stress of not wanting to tell;
"Legalized prostitution" -- yes, i think men want sex more than women and at some points it may make or break the marriage. Some women would prefer to work as prostitutes if the government protected them and treated them as respected citizens. If you're going to have marriage as a sanctified institution then you better be realistic about its foundations needing more than romance and religion.
Erin
> _______________________ > Play with fire! Zildjian drum sticks Michael A. Ball - 08 Jan 2009 23:37 GMT >.Your wife was tortured? I am so sorry to read this; i see your point, >but that must have been coercion to go the counselor and tell, under >the stress of not wanting to tell; Yes, she was tortured by her first husband. Her father had sold her virginity to a black man, when she was 12. Her ex-husband used this to continue the assault on her psyche. And he got far worse.
Because she had lost custody of her children in the divorce, she was willing to do anything to demonstrate her suitability as their mother. So, in a real sense, she was coerced into meeting with his counselor. I believe there was only one meeting.
>...If you're >going to have marriage as a sanctified institution then you better >be realistic about its foundations needing more than romance and >religion. Premarital sex was condemned in another thread today, and I support that, but post marital sex, with a different partner, is too much for me to accept. I can easily accept a porno collection and a toy collection, but not a third person. I must say, you crafted an interesting statement. I'll think about it.
________________________ "...Other people are weird, but sometimes they have candy, so it's best to try to get along with them." Joe Bay
thillman1966@yahoo.com - 27 Jan 2009 00:04 GMT > > >> It's about 11:00 at night in the midwest and I'm writing to a blog > > >> because I'm lost, hurting, confused, depressed and more adjectives [quoted text clipped - 78 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Erin,
If you are so opposed to what you call "western culture" maybe this isn't the right culture for you to live in. Marriage is not a social institute, it is a bond, even a legal one, between two people. Sex or an intimate relationship is something a couple, married or not, doesn't have to share with anybody else. Not the kids, not the in- laws, not the friends, not anybody other then your significant other. Therefore it is something that can be sacred or openly playful or lustful or whatever both parties want/need, but certainly not neglected by one. I am starting to take on the viewpoint that unless there is an obvious reason that both parties are "willing" to work out, it is as much of a betrayal to deny intimate contact with your significant other as it is to cheat. I very much feel for those that fell in love with a person with what seemed like a very simular interest in sex/intimacy only to find it very different once the honeymoon was over. 16 years later I am still just as confused, frustrated and hurt as ever, but now my patience are far less.
Bill in Co - 27 Jan 2009 02:18 GMT >>>>> It's about 11:00 at night in the midwest and I'm writing to a blog >>>>> because I'm lost, hurting, confused, depressed and more adjectives [quoted text clipped - 80 lines] > If you are so opposed to what you call "western culture" maybe this > isn't the right culture for you to live in. ??? What, exactly, is "western 'culture'"?? And .. where is it??
SamIAm - 27 Jan 2009 16:41 GMT >>>>> It's about 11:00 at night in the midwest and I'm writing to a blog >>>>> because I'm lost, hurting, confused, depressed and more adjectives [quoted text clipped - 87 lines] > honeymoon was over. 16 years later I am still just as confused, > frustrated and hurt as ever, but now my patience are far less. AMEN
NewMan - 08 Jan 2009 15:32 GMT I am a Christian. And I must say that there are still some things that I do not agree with in the way that Christianity observed in practice.
One of the things that I do not agree with is "no sex before marraige". Now, to be sure, don't get me wrong here. I do not believe in indiscrimitate sex and the plethora of sleeze and debauchary that goes on all to frequently in todays society. No. However, the FACT of the matter is that in any long-term relationship there *is* a physical/sexual component. To completely ignor that part of the equation *before* marraige is utterly absured, in my opinion.
*Before* two people get married they have every right to experience each other physically and sexually, and to know what they are in for should they get hitched for the lang haul.
Too many "religious" types try to push the crap on us that #1) No sex before Marraige, #2) Once married, sex is only for "procreation", and 3) as soon as you are married "When will you be making babies, babies babies!!????" (ie: new members of the chruch that can increase it's numbers and therefore the churches influence).
There are not may people who would buy a car without a test drive.
To make the decision to commit to a person, you need to know them - and that includes in the biblical sense. WIthout knowing how you and your prospective partner will be sexually, before marriage, is kind of like marrying a stranger - just a bad idea. It askes you to make a critical, life affecting decision, without all the facts and information required to make an informed decision. It borders on trickery and/or deceit. IMHO.
And, unfortunately, it has led you to your currect perdicament. And this is a double wammy for a Christian because if you were to divorce your wife merely on the fact that there is enough sex in the relationship you are gonna likely take it on the chin - to the point where you are likely going to have to go to another church, and possibly switch Christian demoninations to get away from the persecution that most certainly awaits you.
My first marraige failed, and for many, many reasons. But in the ashes of my first marraige I learned alot of things. Generally there are 4 accepted reasons for a divorce - the "4 A's":
Abuse, Affair, Addiciton, Abandonment
From the informaiton you provided, the first 3 do not apply. The 4th - Abandonment - *may* apply, but based on what you said it is iffy.
A link on Christian Dhvorce:
http://christiandivorce.1hwy.com/
Just Google a bit and you will find lots of info.
As husband and wife, you have a duty to one another to consider and cultivate each others happiness. If a couple learns to put each others happiness first, then a lot of things just take care of themselves. You have raised an issue, and by your own account even though you have both discussed this issue, nothing has changed.
Many years ago I was in a relationship. This relationship was very satisfying on all levels, and had the potential of going long-term. However, there were 2 or 3 significant issues that needed to be addressed. I discussed those with that woman 3 times over a 2 year period. Despite all promises of how things were going to change, not one thing changed. In the end, I had to realize that actions speak louder than words. That woman had no intention of changing whatsoever, and by saying one thing and doing another, she was duplicitous. I was not prepared to take the relationship any further. I broke it off. And it was the toughest thing I have ever done - it ripped my guts out. But it had to be done.
This freed me to seek a better relationship. Indeed, I am now with my soul mate! I am fortunate indeed.
God did not intend people to live an a shell of a marriage. The marital relationship is supposed to be a haven of love and abundance with God's blessing.
SO...
You have a lot of thinking to do. Are you prepared to be honest with yourself - *painfully* honest? Are you prepared to do what it takes to either make things work, or to end the marriage and move on? It is a rough road either way. And it will test your faith.
To give you an idea, in my first marraige I knew there were problems at the 7 year mark. I spent 6 additional years trying to make it work before the marraige imploded. I take marraige seriously, and I do not believe in "serial monogamy" to the continuous marraige - divorce - remarraige ala Hollywood.
I gave it all I had. And when I was finally able to b e honest with myself and see the real truth, it became obvious what needed to be done. And oddly, in the end, it was less painful to divorce than it was to stay in a very bad marraige.
God's speed.
>It's about 11:00 at night in the midwest and I'm writing to a blog >because I'm lost, hurting, confused, depressed and more adjectives [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > >Someone please reply with a comment of truth Michael A. Ball - 08 Jan 2009 17:21 GMT >I am a Christian. And I must say that there are still some things that >I do not agree with in the way that Christianity observed in practice. > >One of the things that I do not agree with is "no sex before >marraige"... Okay. Let's see, we have one Newman who will "split hell wide open," [as I used to hear in church]. LLLLLOL I'm just kidding.
In all seriousness, I've never read a more sensible post. Exceptionally well done.
At some point, I began to think just like you: it is utterly ridiculous to await the wedding night to roll the dice on such an important aspect of marriage. Wouldn't it be interesting to find out just how many Christians/church goers/etc. secretly believe as we do.
Thanks for the http://christiandivorce.1hwy.com/ Just glancing at it made me a bit misty eyed, but I think about divorce sometimes. My wife moved to a different county, 12 years ago, and vanished. I'm no longer good mate material, but I might encounter a woman my age who'd occasionally like to share a meal or a hug as much as I'd like to.
________________________ Whatever it takes.
SamIAm - 08 Jan 2009 17:27 GMT >> I am a Christian. And I must say that there are still some things that >> I do not agree with in the way that Christianity observed in practice. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > of marriage. Wouldn't it be interesting to find out just how many > Christians/church goers/etc. secretly believe as we do. I agree with this (sex before marriage is good). But just because sex before marriage is good and abundant, doesn't mean it will remain good after 10 years, 3 kids, 25 lbs, etc.
> Thanks for the http://christiandivorce.1hwy.com/ Just glancing at it > made me a bit misty eyed, but I think about divorce sometimes. My wife [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > ________________________ > Whatever it takes. Erin - 08 Jan 2009 17:44 GMT > >> I am a Christian. And I must say that there are still some things that > >> I do not agree with in the way that Christianity observed in practice. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > before marriage is good and abundant, doesn't mean it will remain good > after 10 years, 3 kids, 25 lbs, etc. Yes exactly. Sometimes people get marital advice from their priest or a wise relative, that marriage is not going to be as rosy and erotic for an indefinite time. Marriage involves some unpleasant responsibilities which may tire both people, especially with a family to raise and a life of challenges, work, illnesses, etc. Geeeeez, do we need a counsellor to understand that?
Erin
> > Thanks for the http://christiandivorce.1hwy.com/ Just glancing at it > > made me a bit misty eyed, but I think about divorce sometimes. My wife [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > ________________________ > > Whatever it takes. SamIAm - 08 Jan 2009 18:04 GMT >>>> I am a Christian. And I must say that there are still some things that >>>> I do not agree with in the way that Christianity observed in practice. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > illnesses, etc. Geeeeez, do we need a counsellor to understand > that? Apparently some people do. In fact, I think I could use the help of a counsellor with this exact topic.
> Erin >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >>> ________________________ >>> Whatever it takes. Doug Anderson - 08 Jan 2009 18:46 GMT > > >> I am a Christian. And I must say that there are still some things that > > >> I do not agree with in the way that Christianity observed in practice. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > illnesses, etc. Geeeeez, do we need a counsellor to understand > that? Good question. If the couple copes with these things well without a counselor, then no, they don't need one.
But if a couple is in a situation like the OP where they are not coping well, then they probably do need a counselor.
Joy - 09 Jan 2009 04:26 GMT >>I am a Christian. And I must say that there are still some things that >>I do not agree with in the way that Christianity observed in practice. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > good mate material, but I might encounter a woman my age who'd > occasionally like to share a meal or a hug as much as I'd like to. Michael, in a case like yours it might be foolish NOT to divorce. Why would you stay legally bound to someone when you don't know what she's doing, who she is with, or whether she could in any way create a legal entanglement that you don't want?
Besides, like you say, maybe you might meet a good dinner partner. But you won't meet the dinner partner you're interested in if you a.) aren't looking and b.) aren't available...
Michael A. Ball - 10 Jan 2009 00:45 GMT >...Michael, in a case like yours it might be foolish NOT to divorce. Why would >you stay legally bound to someone when you don't know what she's doing, who [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >won't meet the dinner partner you're interested in if you a.) aren't looking >and b.) aren't available... Whew. I know you're right, Joy. "Foolish NOT to divorce." I've had similar things said to me before. Even the lady at the bank advised me to close our joint checking account, which I did. So, I know you're right. I've had a do-it-yourself divorce kit for many months, but haven't done anything with it.
Just this week, I found an address for her--two counties away. I don't know if it is still valid, but I reckon I'll be finding out.
I'm not sure why I dread this so much. Even the reasons that come to mind are not good reasons.
Thank you for your concerned response.
All things must pass--George Harrison {RIP}
Joy - 10 Jan 2009 00:56 GMT >>...Michael, in a case like yours it might be foolish NOT to divorce. Why >>would [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Thank you for your concerned response. Wouldn't it be something to find out she divorced *you* years ago?
At any rate, while it is never a good thing, sometimes divorce is the *best* thing. Honestly, yours seems like a perfectly clear example of just such a case. Might as well get it over with, then you don't have to dread it any more...
Michael A. Ball - 10 Jan 2009 01:19 GMT >...Wouldn't it be something to find out she divorced *you* years ago? LOL It certainly would! I must admit, I'd love saving the expense!
>...Might as well get it over with, then you don't have to dread it any >more... I still sometimes feel bad about my first divorce--in 1975. I really need to stop living in the past. Thanks for the nudge in the right direction.
________________________ If you're not living on the edge, you're taking up too much space.
Bill in Co - 10 Jan 2009 03:48 GMT >> ...Wouldn't it be something to find out she divorced *you* years ago? > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I still sometimes feel bad about my first divorce--in 1975. I really > need to stop living in the past. Oh, I dunno about that. Sometimes it seems healthier, given the current times.
Doug Anderson - 08 Jan 2009 15:42 GMT > It's about 11:00 at night in the midwest and I'm writing to a blog > because I'm lost, hurting, confused, depressed and more adjectives [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Someone please reply with a comment of truth Let me be transactional and stark about this.
1) Whether or when your wife wants to have sex is up to her.
2) Whether you want to stay married under the current circumstances is up to you.
That is, there is something wrong here, and your options are solve it, leave, or live with it.
What is wrong is hard to say. Maybe your wife dislikes sex, and maybe that could be changed. Maybe you "aren't doing it well" and that could be changed. Maybe it is something else.
You aren't going to have a very good chance of addressing this problem unless you can talk about it, and this tends to be _very_ hard to talk about, so almost certainly I'd recommend couples counseling.
You have to be able to say in a safe situation (this is part of what a counselor can provide) that sex is important to you, and your not happy being in a marriage where sex is so irregular. Your wife needs to be able to talk about what is going on with her, in such a way that she has to think harder about what is going on than the knee-jerk reaction "all you care about is sex."
If the two of you could work this out on your own, that would be very surprising to me.
So if I were you (and I haven't been, but I've been in a somewhat similar situation), I would talk to my wife about the need for couples counseling, find a counselor, schedule an appointment and ask her to come with me.
In the meantime there are a couple of marriage books you might find interesting/helpful. I'd suggest Schnarch's "Passionate Marriage" and Harley's "Fall in Love, Stay in Love."
Stephanie - 08 Jan 2009 16:16 GMT > It's about 11:00 at night in the midwest and I'm writing to a blog > because I'm lost, hurting, confused, depressed and more adjectives [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Someone please reply with a comment of truth Truth as I see it. There is likely a dynamic that has developed. And there is not enough information to see what it is. It is likely that neither of your conscious minds would be able to articulate what it is. Pwer struggle? Resentment? Hidden sexual fears and issues? I do sense a tad of tit for tat, you get the cuddle and I get some sex... But who knows.
So. Solution. Get thee to marital counseling. Ask her to come. Tell her you love her, if that remains the truth, and want the best marriage in the world. Tell her you want to find some help with this stuff before too much resentment kicks in, if you can. (So she does not get defensive about you taking off on her.) If she won't go, go alone.
Seek out counselors of repute at your church, if you have access to an employee assistance program, a referral from yrou doc...
Best wishes.
Doug Anderson - 08 Jan 2009 16:33 GMT > > It's about 11:00 at night in the midwest and I'm writing to a blog > > because I'm lost, hurting, confused, depressed and more adjectives [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > Resentment? Hidden sexual fears and issues? I do sense a tad of tit for tat, > you get the cuddle and I get some sex... But who knows. Except without the exchange. She gets the cuddle and he doesn't get any sex!
By the way, you are quite possibly right about this. But there is another explanation that works just as well for what the OP described. He is so hurt by the feelings of (what he perceives as) rejection that he finds it very hard to cuddle nicely.
It is sort of the opposite of tit for tat. If you believe your partner is avoiding doing what you feel like you need to be happy in the relationship, it becomes harder to tend to the needs of your partner.
> So. Solution. Get thee to marital counseling. Ask her to come. Tell her you > love her, if that remains the truth, and want the best marriage in the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Best wishes. Stephanie - 08 Jan 2009 16:51 GMT >>> It's about 11:00 at night in the midwest and I'm writing to a blog >>> because I'm lost, hurting, confused, depressed and more adjectives [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > Except without the exchange. She gets the cuddle and he doesn't get > any sex! Yah. That and a buck and half still won't get him a Starbucks.
Anyway, I don't find that tit for tat arrangements get anybody anything in the long run. Which is the reason I mentioned it.
> By the way, you are quite possibly right about this. But there is > another explanation that works just as well for what the OP described. > He is so hurt by the feelings of (what he perceives as) rejection that > he finds it very hard to cuddle nicely. Absolutely.
> It is sort of the opposite of tit for tat. If you believe your > partner is avoiding doing what you feel like you need to be happy in > the relationship, it becomes harder to tend to the needs of your > partner. And who the heck knows! Down the pike, those hurt feelings result in grumping acquiescence to cuddling, which she then interprets as him not wanting and loving her. She then wants sex less AND does not server his favorite potato recipe. And then she begins to notice that he does not really listen to her when she speaks, which had never been an issue for her before. Then he starts to think, goddam all this nagging....
And you are left with a muddle that can be difficult to pinpoint while thickly in it. Which is why I thought professional help before the muddle got any muddier was a decent idea!
(Of course, I made up the connect the dots trail of resentment... some folks might not get that.)
So. Solution. Get thee to marital counseling. Ask her to come. Tell
>> her you love her, if that remains the truth, and want the best >> marriage in the world. Tell her you want to find some help with this [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> >> Best wishes. Vickie - 08 Jan 2009 17:59 GMT > It's about 11:00 at night in the midwest and I'm writing to a blog > because I'm lost, hurting, confused, depressed and more adjectives [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Someone please reply with a comment of truth You say you have talked about it, but have you asked her *why* she keeps sex so low on the priorities list? Maybe she doesn't know herself and needs to find the reason so she can figure things out. If it winds up that she just has a lower libido than you and not something else like self conscious body image, needing more romance, not happy with the performance, etc, you both need to find a good medium and decide what you can live with to stay married.
Vickie
Michael A. Ball - 08 Jan 2009 19:00 GMT >...Someone please reply with a comment of truth Please, answer Xorra's questions--which are some of the same questions many of us would ask you.
Does your religious views? If so, how does she respond to her biblical obligation to be submissive to you? Note: I Do Not accept that rule nearly as literally as many church folks.
________________________ Whatever it takes.
Tai - 10 Jan 2009 06:42 GMT > It's about 11:00 at night in the midwest and I'm writing to a blog > because I'm lost, hurting, confused, depressed and more adjectives [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Someone please reply with a comment of truth I think your options are limited, unfortunately.
Do you know if your wife enjoys sex at all? Does she orgasm when you do have sex? It sounds like she feels affection and welcomes non-sexual contact from you so clearly she doesn't dislike you - a fairly common reason for not wanting to have sex with someone.
Did she ever have desire for you? Sometimes, even if desire is present initially, it can be squashed by continually bad sex and, in effect, may have been trained out of her where you are concerned. Are you able to communicate honestly enough with each other to rule that out as the reason for her reluctance?
You say you have talked and we can guess what you've said to your wife but what was her response to you? If she simply lacks the desire for sex and there aren't external reasons for that (work stress, health problems, past trauma) then she's not actually broken, you two will always be incompatable sexually.
Frankly I don't think you have much hope of ever having a satisfactory sex life with your wife. Unless she is willing to see this as a problem for you both and want to change your situation you don't have any chance at all. Adding to my pessimism is that if this truly is a libido issue rather than the inevitable result of several years of unenjoyable sex then making herself available more often to accommodate you isn't going to work all that well for either of you, given the disparity of your current sex drives. You'll both know she's bored by the chore sex has become and you won't have the sense of shared pleasure that is so important in an intimate relationship.
See if you can get your wife to go to joint marriage counselling with you. Trying to talk about this on your own hasn't been working for you but it might help to have a neutral and trained third party guide your discussion of this very sensitive problem.
|
|
|