hm is right... It so depends on the circumstances. My H is well, Extremely HD. Although I do not want sex every day, I mostly do to make him happy.
Don't get me wrong, its always great, but his track record of porn,etc has put a HUGE damper on everything. Sometimes I get so depressed about it, BECAUSE he is NOT sex starved why he still feels the need to look at porn, this is the troublesome part.
My H can be cruel at times and just completely selfish and yes if my mind is not in it, no I don't want to do it.
Well, just so I'm not misunderstood, it sounds to me like you're fulfilling your sexual obligation beyond the call of duty!
Now, about your husband. If his extreme HD-ness is similar to mine, I would suggest to him that he should try to redirect more of his erotic energy towards you. But since this message is going to you, I would suggest that you try to direct his erotic energy towards you by showing a positive interest. His interest in porn isn't necessarily a negative comment about you. I'm not saying you should accept the porn, rather focus on how great it is that he has a strong erotic interest, and tell him you'd love to have that strong erotic interest involve you. I'm just guessing here, but if he's open to that, he might be holding back only because you may be very disapproving of his interest in porn, and he's interpreting that incorrectly.
Perhaps your husband is dealing with a bit of the "madonna-whore" syndrome where he likes the "nasty" aspect of porn, and puts you on a pedestal as mother and pure wife?
Frankly, I don't understand why guys don't talk more with their wives about things like this. God knows I've tried many times to talk to my wife about stuff like this. I guess the people who end up on this forum are mostly those who want to talk things through in their marriages, but have spouses who don't want to talk, or sometimes simply can't.
There are biblical verses that say its not an option to deprive your spouse except by mutual consent.
I am aware of those verses. And I assume a wife who subscribes to them will get a certain satisfaction from having sex with her husband even if she gets no sexual pleasure from it. But what if she doesn't subscribe to them?
Quote:
I'm not a fan of the LD/HD dynamic where the LD is allowed to starve down the HD to nothing.
What does it mean to say that "the LD" is "allowed" not to hvae sex? No one needs permission not to have sex. Do you mean you're not a fan of relationships where the LD person refuses to have sex and is not made to admit inadequacy, or shoulder blame, or feel guilty about it, or suffer some punishment? What would be the point of all that? Who benefits from it?
LD causes agony in an HD when they are not respectful of their needs. I mean should we do things in relationship that we know cause agony in others?
"LD causes agony in an HD when they are not respectful of their needs. I mean should we do things in relationship that we know cause agony in others?"
The reverse is also true you know. It comes down to give and take. There are times when you give even if you don't want to and there are times that you give when you do. It's as simple as that.
Whether it's sex, money, attention, etc., everyone's got different needs in varying levels of priority. Yet everyone has free will to give and take as they choose. There may be times that the LD partner gives even when they're not in the mood and they're not telling the HD partner that they're not into it. They do it because it makes the other person happy. But what if the HD partner thinks that what the LD partner isn't enough and demands more even though the LD partner is giving as much as they can. Then it becomes a matter of selfishness. Give and take. All a part of free will.
M-43 W-40 2D - 9 and 5
Emotion, yet peace. Ignorance, yet knowledge. Passion, yet serenity. Chaos, yet harmony. Death, yet a new life.
I think wives do "owe it" [to have sex with their husbands] to some degree. It's an obligation by default, because no wife has the "right" to expect her husband to remain faithful by being celibate. And so if extramarital affairs are against their morals, the wife is directly "forcing" the family to split up. You can only say the wife does not owe it if she does not owe her family any effort to preserve the family.
I am leery of discourse about relationships that focuses on what each partner "owes" the other because it is often an excuse for not making hard choices and taking responsibility for them. A wise person once posted that the universe of things your wife owes you can be divided into two categories: those things a court would order her to give you if you divorced, and those things that she doesn't actually owe you. The question isn't whether your wife owes you sex; it's whether you owe it to yourself to be with someone who wants to have sex with you (for whatever reason). Phrasing it that way forces you to take responsibility for your choice to either remain in your marriage or to leave it. Your wife, of course, must take responsiblity for her own choices (and their consequences).
ssmguy, I gather you have decided, at least for now, that you get enough out of your marriage that it is worth staying in it despite the lack of sex. Your wife, for her part, has decided that she'd rather risk losing you than have sex with you. I don't see how either one of you is forcing the other to do anything. Of course, there is a sense in which she is "forcing" you to choose between having sex and remaining married to her; but how does it really benefit you to look at it that way?
But what if the HD partner thinks that what the LD partner isn't enough and demands more even though the LD partner is giving as much as they can. Then it becomes a matter of selfishness. Give and take. All a part of free will.
And my wife would say she can't give any sex, so I'm asking for more than she can give and therefore I'm selfish.
So you might then respond that, well, you didn't mean it was OK to give ZERO sex. But then who determines how much sex is reasonable? So now you're right back where you started because this is exactly what the husband and wife disagreed about in the first place.
ssmguy, if your woman has never orgasmed it is possible she has a mental block. My ex wife had this, this mental block also tied to repressed sexuality. I'm not sure how we got past it, but once she started enjoying orgasm and doing it on her own her sexuality increased lots.
Yeah, if I could ever convince her of that, it seems like it would be huge progress. I got her a book on it years ago, and she totally refused to even look at it. She said I was only thinking about sex for myself and that feeling pressured to be sexual was a huge turn off. The logic, of course, is perfect -- if I pressure her to be sexual, then that's a turn off and makes her feel even less interested in sex. And you know, if you have zero interest in sex, her logic kind of makes sense!
I am leery of discourse about relationships that focuses on what each partner "owes" the other because it is often an excuse for not making hard choices and taking responsibility for them. A wise person once posted that the universe of things your wife owes you can be divided into two categories: those things a court would order her to give you if you divorced, and those things that she doesn't actually owe you. The question isn't whether your wife owes you sex; it's whether you owe it to yourself to be with someone who wants to have sex with you (for whatever reason). Phrasing it that way forces you to take responsibility for your choice to either remain in your marriage or to leave it. Your wife, of course, must take responsiblity for her own choices (and their consequences).
EXACTLY!
SSM is a glaring signal that a marriage is not succeeding. Some posters here seem to suggest that if the wife, in these cases, would just satisfy her H's sexual needs, their marriage would continue just fine. Not so! That would be to completely ignore the message her inability to have sex is actually sending: "Something is seriously wrong in my life and I'm in pain." There are critical issues--whether the couple has learned to communicate, whether they actually love each other any more, whether they know how to meet each other's basic needs--which must be addressed first.
Not feeding the children is not a very useful analogy for not having sex with one's husband. And not because the H is not going to die without sex, but because, unlike the children, he's exercising his choice in choosing to see himself as a helpless victim rather than a participant in an unhealthy union.
SSM is a glaring signal that a marriage is not succeeding.
I wouldn't mind thinking of it that way -- that a marriage is a failure if it doesn't include sex. Simple as black and white, good marriage or bad marriage, one or the or the other. But it's not that simple.
I'm in this marriage because I've chosen to stay in it, not because I'm some pitiful victim frozen with fear and unable to act.
Quote:
That would be to completely ignore the message her inability to have sex is actually sending: "Something is seriously wrong in my life and I'm in pain."
Though I might agree with that statement, how do you reconcile it with the fact that some people live single, or with a partner who also wants no sex, and NOBODY would say such a person is in serious pain and has something wrong with their life. So which is it? Is it just the incompatibility that's the problem, or is any person not wanting sex a person who has something seriously wrong in their life and is living in pain?
Sorry for any confusion in my wording about SSM being a signal that a marriage is not succeeding. What I was trying to say is that experts agree that a lack of sex in a marriage is a SYMPTOM of other problems between the two partners. It is rarely the only problem.
Two people who have never had sex who choose to get together is a far cry from two people who started out having sex, and then one suddenly slammed the brakes on.
