Elephant in the Room

[Cobie]

I saw a recommended book (have not read it myself) called "I Fell in Love with an Asexual: Recover from a Sexless Marriage or Relationship with Someone Who Lacks Sexual Attraction & Reclaim Your Sexuality, Sanity, & Self"

[Telecaster68]

I saw someone recommending that too. I might read it. 

[Cobie]

3 hours ago, Telecaster68 said:

... Fourteen years with no conversations and the only woman wonders starts wondering what the problem is only after her husband starts talking to someone else... 

Not at all up to your usual standard language wise 😁.  But I do see your point.

[Traveler40]

I’ve read that book - the author sent it to me back in October.  It’s pretty good once you get past his personal story (somewhat irrelevant) and was helpful to me generally. 

 

The concept of sexuality and desire on a spectrum (as my husband refuses to self define as asexual) was helpful to both of us.  Defining our situation is less important than dealing with his complete lack of desire for sex/intimacy and my need for it.

 

In any case, I owe the author a few reviews.  The book was worth my time and gave me food for thought. The only thing I had trouble with was that he went from married to an asexual woman to polyamory which wasn’t identifiable personally. I’m a one-on-one kinda girl...

[NoLongerActive1234]

4 hours ago, Treesarepretty said:

I hold with @MrDane, @Telecaster68, and @Traveler40that Amy's refusal to ask questions about the whole thing--especially the lack of sex--seems like a refusal to do her job. Even giving her the benefit of the doubt that she wanted to stay "family friendly," there is the basic logic that the only way for your patients to know which information you need is if they already have the situation all figured out. If they did have it figured out, why would they be writing in the first place? 

If I am not mistaken there really is no point in asking questions about the situation for Amy because the format is that someone writes to ask for advice then you simply get it...there is no follow up, it is not like a conversation where the advicer can ask and learn more of the situation. It's not even like a forum where the conversation can continue even if in writing. From what she described how on earth would talking about the sex at this point do much or try to shove guilt one way or the other? Whatever the reason for the no sex the situation has already culminated to the point of that the most current, stressed issue seem to be whether they should stay together or not (it's gone down hill too far)... how this is going to affect their family, especially practically and it seems to very much be leaning to a 'No' on that they will remain married.
Amy is imo just trying to guide her as best as possible into making a decision for herself and come to terms with that there is a big problem in their relationship.

 

39 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

Thanks. 

 

I wonder if a small wording change would make the situation more comprehensible to some? 

 

Fourteen years with no conversations and the only woman wonders starts wondering what the problem is only after her husband starts talking to someone else... 

 

To pre-empt the inevitable 'but conversations aren't sex, they're far more important' responses: I'd say that to most people, sex and conversations are of roughly equal importance in a relationship. 

To me that wording changes nothing because no one still knows why the no conversation. There is no such thing as conversation being more important than sex,  that is personal preference/depends on who you are and can never be a general truth. Whenever someone thinks like that I see it not too differently from debates about whether white chocolate is actually tasty as opposed to dark chocolate. One can never make a white chocolate fan move over to the dark side...(unfortunately lol). 

 

I don't think this article piece regarding this woman's situation has anything to do really with sexuals here who are (obviously legitimately) struggling in their relationship with their asexual partner. If it is meant to be some metaphor for that then it's conufusing and has just gone over my head. I sympathize with everyone who's going through this and there is no denying the importance of sex for most people in a relationship. It is incredibly valid, Period. They are both important components.
If you or anyone wants to talk who's struggling with their relationship my PM box is open in case that'd somehow be of use. 

[Sally]

I'm appalled that the wife told her adult children what their father said.  What did she think they would do?  I'm also a little appalled that the husband says he's having an affair, loves the woman he's having an affair with (which means it's a real relationship, not just a sexual affair), and isn't in love with the wife, and they have no children in the home -- and yet they haven't discussed separating.  What's his reason for continuing the marriage?  Why would the woman he's in love with want him to continue the marriage?  

 

TLDR:  These people really don't know what the feck they're doing.  

[Cobie]

14 minutes ago, Sally said:

... the husband says he's having an affair, ...

http://www.asexuality.org/en/topic/165506-elephant-in-the-room/?do=findComment&comment=1062624739

 

[Sally]

23 minutes ago, Thea2 said:

http://www.asexuality.org/en/topic/165506-elephant-in-the-room/?do=findComment&comment=1062624739

 

Please say what you want to say, not just post a link.  

[MrDane]

2 hours ago, MistySpring said:

If I am not mistaken there really is no point in asking questions about the situation for Amy because the format is that someone writes to ask for advice then you simply get it...there is no follow up, it is not like a conversation where the advicer can ask and learn more of the situation. It's not even like a forum where the conversation can continue even if in writing. From what she described how on earth would talking about the sex at this point do much or try to shove guilt one way or the other? Whatever the reason for the no sex the situation has already culminated to the point of that the most current, stressed issue seem to be whether they should stay together or not (it's gone down hill too far)... how this is going to affect their family, especially practically and it seems to very much be leaning to a 'No' on that they will remain married.
Amy is imo just trying to guide her as best as possible into making a decision for herself and come to terms with that there is a big problem in their relationship.

 

To me that wording changes nothing because no one still knows why the no conversation. There is no such thing as conversation being more important than sex,  that is personal preference/depends on who you are and can never be a general truth. Whenever someone thinks like that I see it not too differently from debates about whether white chocolate is actually tasty as opposed to dark chocolate. One can never make a white chocolate fan move over to the dark side...(unfortunately lol). 

 

I don't think this article piece regarding this woman's situation has anything to do really with sexuals here who are (obviously legitimately) struggling in their relationship with their asexual partner. If it is meant to be some metaphor for that then it's conufusing and has just gone over my head. I sympathize with everyone who's going through this and there is no denying the importance of sex for most people in a relationship. It is incredibly valid, Period. They are both important components.
If you or anyone wants to talk who's struggling with their relationship my PM box is open in case that'd somehow be of use. 

A good advice/councelling is often to get the people involved to ask the rigth questions. Then the answers may come. “Why did we stop having sex?” “What made you get so close to another woman that you ended up in love with her?”

Amy knows to little to be able to tell them what to do, but she could/should help them to ask the questions.

 

 

[Telecaster68]

10 hours ago, MistySpring said:

If I am not mistaken there really is no point in asking questions about the situation for Amy because the format is that someone writes to ask for advice then you simply get it...there is no follow up, it is not like a conversation where the advicer can ask and learn more of the situation. It's not even like a forum where the conversation can continue even if in writing. From what she described how on earth would talking about the sex at this point do much or try to shove guilt one way or the other? Whatever the reason for the no sex the situation has already culminated to the point of that the most current, stressed issue seem to be whether they should stay together or not (it's gone down hill too far)... how this is going to affect their family, especially practically and it seems to very much be leaning to a 'No' on that they will remain married.
Amy is imo just trying to guide her as best as possible into making a decision for herself and come to terms with that there is a big problem in their relationship.

 

To me that wording changes nothing because no one still knows why the no conversation. There is no such thing as conversation being more important than sex,  that is personal preference/depends on who you are and can never be a general truth. Whenever someone thinks like that I see it not too differently from debates about whether white chocolate is actually tasty as opposed to dark chocolate. One can never make a white chocolate fan move over to the dark side...(unfortunately lol). 

My point about conversation was that to most people - and here you can absolutely draw a generalisation because sexuals are 99pc of the population - sex and conversation are equally important, not that one is more important. I think the general asexual blindness to the obvious conclusion about lack of sex is because it's not important to them, so it doesn't leap off the screen at them. No conversation, on the other hand, would be a different matter. 

 

 

[NoLongerActive1234]

13 hours ago, MrDane said:

A good advice/councelling is often to get the people involved to ask the rigth questions. Then the answers may come. “Why did we stop having sex?” “What made you get so close to another woman that you ended up in love with her?”

Amy knows to little to be able to tell them what to do, but she could/should help them to ask the questions.

 

 

I'd definitely agree with you if it was in a different context but not like this where the one with the issue's description of it is way too vague and the advicer's ability to write a response is also limited for further contact. She is not a counselor and couldn't be seen as one because it is not possible in the format, anyone who writes to her would have to take it with a grain of salt. I think especially to me it is the lack of information from the lady with the issue that makes being so hard on Amy very puzzling just because she is just going after the little that was written.

 

5 hours ago, Telecaster68 said:

My point about conversation was that to most people - and here you can absolutely draw a generalisation because sexuals are 99pc of the population - sex and conversation are equally important, not that one is more important. I think the general asexual blindness to the obvious conclusion about lack of sex is because it's not important to them, so it doesn't leap off the screen at them. No conversation, on the other hand, would be a different matter. 

 

 

I agree, that surely is true in a lot of cases here, it's human nature I guess. Can't say I have seen that in this thread though... I don't think it is so bad that it happens like that as long as one gets that to someone else sex and conversation can be of equal importance. Seeing many such comments like that around here like 'gosh how can anyone like sex' etc can get to me sometimes, almost as if I am somehow freakishly weird for enjoying such intimacy with my boyfriend but then again I do that to myself. If anyone would actually say that to my face they'd be a confirmed asshole anyhow and that has little to do with ones sexual orientation. 

[alibali]

Why do people who do have sex in their partnership have affairs??

[vega57]

5 hours ago, alibali said:

Why do people who do have sex in their partnership have affairs??

Good question. 

 

Especially since statistically about 56% of men who have affairs claim that they're either "happy" or "very happy" with their marriages.  Also, in another study, 92% stated that sex was NOT the motivating factor for the affair. 

[Treesarepretty]

On 12/31/2017 at 1:45 PM, MistySpring said:

If I am not mistaken there really is no point in asking questions about the situation for Amy because the format is that someone writes to ask for advice then you simply get it...there is no follow up, it is not like a conversation where the advicer can ask and learn more of the situation. It's not even like a forum where the conversation can continue even if in writing.

You CAN put those questions on the page and hope they respond. If they don't, then I guess it wasn't that important. Also, this is the 21st century, you can have the 2nd, 3rd, etc. responses online and only choose the most interesting to put in the physical paper. If they don't take this seriously as a dialogue, how is it any better than daytime TV programs where weird people just shout at each other? 

 

On 12/31/2017 at 1:45 PM, MistySpring said:

 

From what she described how on earth would talking about the sex at this point do much or try to shove guilt one way or the other? Whatever the reason for the no sex the situation has already culminated to the point of that the most current, stressed issue seem to be whether they should stay together or not (it's gone down hill too far)... how this is going to affect their family, especially practically and it seems to very much be leaning to a 'No' on that they will remain married.
Amy is imo just trying to guide her as best as possible into making a decision for herself and come to terms with that there is a big problem in their relationship.

She isn't asking for help leaving her husband; she asked how her marriage can be saved. If there has been no sex in 20 years and at least one of them is really upset over that then it is a problem that must be addressed. 

 

On 12/31/2017 at 1:45 PM, MistySpring said:

To me that wording changes nothing because no one still knows why the no conversation. There is no such thing as conversation being more important than sex,  that is personal preference/depends on who you are and can never be a general truth. Whenever someone thinks like that I see it not too differently from debates about whether white chocolate is actually tasty as opposed to dark chocolate. One can never make a white chocolate fan move over to the dark side...(unfortunately lol). 

I am pretty sure that @Telecaster68 intended that for people who would not think the lack of sex here is consequential. You appear to not be one of those people. 

 

Also, I will never understand people who don't start out on the dark side of the chocolate debate. 😋

[Telecaster68]

4 hours ago, vega57 said:

Good question. 

 

Especially since statistically about 56% of men who have affairs claim that they're either "happy" or "very happy" with their marriages.  Also, in another study, 92% stated that sex was NOT the motivating factor for the affair. 

Sources, pleasse. 

[vega57]

3 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

Sources, pleasse. 

Look them up.  They're on the internet.

[vega57]

Never mind.  I'll make it easier for you.

 

https://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/guide/why-do-women-cheat#1

 

http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/wayoflife/10/03/o.why.men.cheat/

 

 

[Telecaster68]

28 minutes ago, vega57 said:

Look them up.  They're on the internet.

Thanks. But (a) the person who makes the assertion has to back it up - that's just normal debate; and (b) even if I could find some research with 92% in it, how would I know it's the same thing you're quoting?

[vega57]

3 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

Thanks. But (a) the person who makes the assertion has to back it up - that's just normal debate; and (b) even if I could find some research with 92% in it, how would I know it's the same thing you're quoting?

Obviously, I cut you some slack and cited the references for you. 

[Telecaster68]

The CCN piece is rather odd - the headline is about reasons other than sex for cheating, and the survey says it's 92% not about sex. That seems confusing to me. We can assume the 92pc comes from this Gary Neuman person, but there's no details about exactly what the question was, how it was put to them, sample selection, etc. so I'm remaining skeptical on that one till you can show me (since you brought it up) the methodology.

 

Anyway, the Neuman says:

 

Quote

The majority said it was an emotional disconnection, specifically a sense of feeling underappreciated. A lack of thoughtful gestures," Gary says. "Men are very emotional beings. They just don't look like that. Or they don't seem like that. Or they don't tell you that."

Time and time again, sexuals have said that the lack of sex results in emotional disconnection and feeling underappreciated. Sex within a relationship can't be silo'd off into a separate activity, unrelated to the rest of what's going on. Sex is a way of regaining that connection - I'm pretty sure most would prefer it to be with their relationship partner, but sometimes that's just not going to happen (like, for instance if they're asexual), so for most people, the emotional connection is intertwined with sex. 

 

Then the second survey contradicts the CNN report, by saying that men and women have affairs for different reasons - women because they're lacking emotional connection, which is exactly what Neuman's research says is men's motivation. One or the other is wrong, surely? We can't know which because there's not methodology or sources cited in either. There's also some fairly nasty sexist crap from the academics in that survey, boiling down to how men are different and just want sex. Swap the sexes round and you'll see how bad it is. I'd expect better from academics.

 

I'm not giving the person who goes outside the relationship a free pass here, just pointing out it's more complicated than a couple of cherry picked numbers would indicate by themselves.

[NoLongerActive1234]

4 hours ago, Treesarepretty said:

You CAN put those questions on the page and hope they respond. If they don't, then I guess it wasn't that important. Also, this is the 21st century, you can have the 2nd, 3rd, etc. responses online and only choose the most interesting to put in the physical paper. If they don't take this seriously as a dialogue, how is it any better than daytime TV programs where weird people just shout at each other? 

It does change things if there is more of a chance to respond to her advice, I did not see that. It still does not strike me as a format for dialog though. Like here we are quoting each other back and forth and interacting in a whole different way than what Amy would be able to. I think that most people who write to her don't look to have a continued dialog  but want some general advice. That would not necessarily mean it wasn't a big thing for them either if they don't wish to elaborate more but rather that they will look for further aid elsewhere and they simply needed a start and to be heard. That might not sound as if it serves much of a purpose but I think that it likely does. 

 

4 hours ago, Treesarepretty said:

She isn't asking for help leaving her husband; she asked how her marriage can be saved. If there has been no sex in 20 years and at least one of them is really upset over that then it is a problem that must be addressed. 

 

I am pretty sure that @Telecaster68 intended that for people who would not think the lack of sex here is consequential. You appear to not be one of those people. 

 

Also, I will never understand people who don't start out on the dark side of the chocolate debate. 😋

Well you know she actually technically did not ask if her marriage could be saved just as she did not ask how to leave her husband. Those were my own ponderings to Amy's thinking in giving advice. She asked what it meant with that he said that he is no longer in love with her as well as her being miserable and what should she do. It really is open to interpretation of her words and a perspective thing. Having that awareness of that it isn't so clear cut in what this woman actually means and how Amy could advice her I don't see the why the outrage. That's what I, and I think others in this thread, have wanted to point out that it does not have to be seen so linear. 

I'll have to send some dark chocolate your way then from across the pond! We have pretty awesome chocolate in Sweden. *Stretches out my arms...commencing throwing*.

 

[vega57]

2 hours ago, Telecaster68 said:

The CCN piece is rather odd - the headline is about reasons other than sex for cheating, and the survey says it's 92% not about sex. That seems confusing to me. We can assume the 92pc comes from this Gary Neuman person, but there's no details about exactly what the question was, how it was put to them, sample selection, etc. so I'm remaining skeptical on that one till you can show me (since you brought it up) the methodology.

I haven't read any of Neuman's books, but from the information I've seen so far, the 92% comes from a study he conducted over the course of 2 years, and is published in his book, The Truth About Cheating. 

 

Quote

Time and time again, sexuals have said that the lack of sex results in emotional disconnection and feeling underappreciated. Sex within a relationship can't be silo'd off into a separate activity, unrelated to the rest of what's going on.

That's funny.  I was thinking about this very thing just yesterday.  Maybe part of the problem is that so often, it IS considered to be a separate activity unrelated to the rest of what's going on, by many people.  I've read countless posts about this, and my late husband even expressed this same belief.  It was as if he saw our sex life as a separate entity from the rest of our marriage.  If I was angry at him (having caught him in a lie, for example), he didn't believe that my anger about his lie(s) should "spill over" to our sex life.  And because of what and how much I've read, I know that he's not the only person to believe that.  The lack of sex may cause an emotional disconnection, but an emotional disconnection may also cause the lack of sex. 

 

Ironically, people who have affairs often separate their affair from the rest of their marriage, believing that one doesn't (or shouldn't) affect the other. 

 

Quote

Sex is a way of regaining that connection - I'm pretty sure most would prefer it to be with their relationship partner, but sometimes that's just not going to happen (like, for instance if they're asexual), so for most people, the emotional connection is intertwined with sex. 

Yes and no.  Sex can be ONE way to regain a connection, but it's certainly not the ONLY way.  Unfortunately, it's the ONLY way for some people (especially men).  If it's the ONLY way that someone feels that connection, it can be burdensome for the other person who may desire the feeling of connectedness through other activities. 

 

Quote

Then the second survey contradicts the CNN report, by saying that men and women have affairs for different reasons - women because they're lacking emotional connection, which is exactly what Neuman's research says is men's motivation. One or the other is wrong, surely?

No, neither are wrong.  The emotional motivations a man may cheat are different from the emotional motivations that a woman may cheat. 

Quote

We can't know which because there's not methodology or sources cited in either. There's also some fairly nasty sexist crap from the academics in that survey, boiling down to how men are different and just want sex. Swap the sexes round and you'll see how bad it is. I'd expect better from academics.

So would I. 

 

Quote

I'm not giving the person who goes outside the relationship a free pass here, just pointing out

Quote

it's more complicated than a couple of cherry picked numbers would indicate by themselves.

 

Not so much "cherry picked" numbers, but just examples.  And I agree that the whole psychology of cheating is very complex. 

[Telecaster68]

Quote

 

 Maybe part of the problem is that so often, it IS considered to be a separate activity unrelated to the rest of what's going on, by many people.

 

I'm with you on the anger carrying over. It seems obvious to me. By the same token, the non-sexual partner needs to get their head round the concept that closing down sex as part of a relationship will inevitably affect the rest of it (unless they both happen to be asexual).

 

One of the common truisms I've seen is that women have sex because they feel connected, and men have sex in order to feel connected, though I think generally men and women are more similar than not, and as you say, a sexually uninterested partner can be both cause and effect, creating a downward spiral. This comes a lot on Dead Bedroom type discussions. Eventually one side or the other has to just get over themselves and either offer emotional connection or sex in the hope that the other one will transpire as a result, if anything's going to improve. Which side depends purely on what's going to work; blame has to be let go.

 

I'm not sure it's the *only* way to connect, but for most people it's the only way to get particular types of connection, just as conversation, or sheer time spent together, or going through crises together are the only way to get other types of connection.

 

Quote

The emotional motivations a man may cheat are different from the emotional motivations that a woman may cheat. 

But those two studies say they're the same - emotional disconnection.

[vega57]

45 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

I'm with you on the anger carrying over. It seems obvious to me. By the same token, the non-sexual partner needs to get their head round the concept that closing down sex as part of a relationship will inevitably affect the rest of it (unless they both happen to be asexual).

 

One of the common truisms I've seen is that women have sex because they feel connected, and men have sex in order to feel connected, though I think generally men and women are more similar than not, and as you say, a sexually uninterested partner can be both cause and effect, creating a downward spiral. This comes a lot on Dead Bedroom type discussions. Eventually one side or the other has to just get over themselves and either offer emotional connection or sex in the hope that the other one will transpire as a result, if anything's going to improve. Which side depends purely on what's going to work; blame has to be let go.

Oh, but it goes deeper than that.  So much of the time BOTH parties have no idea how to confront the underlying issues.  I mean, it's very common for a woman to lose interest in sex temporarily after the birth of a child.  Suddenly, she's responsible for another human life.  She's never been a mother before, and she may be terrified that she's going to do something 'wrong'.  Sex may seem like a distraction to her...OR...she may feel that sex is no longer "just for fun"...OR...her husband may start to see her as a mother and no longer as a sexual being.  HE may be the one to lose interest.  But if the rest of the relationship is going well, neither one of them may see their lack of sex as a 'problem', until one person does.  I've seen that some men actually expect their wives to be having intercourse only 2 weeks after the birth of the baby.  Meanwhile, the medical recommendations are to abstain from sex anywhere from 6 weeks to 3 months. 

 

Quote

I'm not sure it's the *only* way to connect, but for most people it's the only way to get particular types of connection, just as conversation, or sheer time spent together, or going through crises together are the only way to get other types of connection.

Just curious, Tele.  When you talk about "connection", what does that mean to you? 

Quote

But those two studies say they're the same - emotional disconnection.

I'm not so sure that emotional "connection" means the same thing for everyone. 

[Telecaster68]

Re the pregnancy thing - yes, it seems pretty common. Once it's established, the husband feels rejected and eventually resentful; the wife feels resentful that he's apparently not putting the new child first in the same way she is, and knackered (and of course he may well be knackered too, which just makes his mood worse). So from his point of view it's 'if we just had sex, I'd feel better and more supportive', and from hers it's 'if you were more supportive, I might feel less knackered and more likely to want sex'. Neither's wronger than the other, but sooner or later one of them has to make the first move, as with any stand off.

 

On connection - for me, it's about feeling viscerally that you matter more than anyone else, that you're their first call; which is why the other love language don't cut it, for me. Pretty much all of them could be part of any other relationship. Words can be said without meaning them, but sharing that physical experience (in the context of all the other intimate nonsexual parts of a relationship) is unambiguous. And because it's a physical connection as well as mental, it's that much more intense - our bodies affect how we perceive situations (have a look at this study: http://gaius.fpce.uc.pt/niips/novoplano/ps1/documentos/dutton&aron1974.pdf).

 

In the moment, it's not about two people having their separate sexual pleasure - it's giving and receiving becoming the same thing, and giving is as important as recieving. 

 

Afterwards, it's like any intense, shared experience - it just does create a bond that people who weren't part of it don't have. It's like a more intense version of the bond you get as a group that's been through a crisis, or put on a show. 

 

Clearly, it's not always like this, for the whole, er, episode. But my experience is that it is fairly often, and almost always it's like that for a least a little while.

 

So without that, a relationship seems tepid in comparison; and when it's been like that, but your partner loses interest in repeating it to maintain it, you lose that shared bond. It's that unilateral change, and the suspicion that maybe they never felt it at all, the underlies the hurt and resentment. It's not a sullen toddler refused ice cream thing.

[vega57]

12 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

Re the pregnancy thing - yes, it seems pretty common. Once it's established, the husband feels rejected and eventually resentful; the wife feels resentful that he's apparently not putting the new child first in the same way she is, and knackered (and of course he may well be knackered too, which just makes his mood worse). So from his point of view it's 'if we just had sex, I'd feel better and more supportive', and from hers it's 'if you were more supportive, I might feel less knackered and more likely to want sex'. Neither's wronger than the other, but sooner or later one of them has to make the first move, as with any stand off.

I agree, but it's not that simple.  The individuals would have to delve into WHY either of them would feel "rejected" and "resentful".  I put those two words in quotes because sometimes the feelings of resentment/rejection are due to unrealistic expectations/beliefs, by either or both parties.  For example, a wife may be resentful of he husband because he didn't buy her an expensive enough 'push present' when their baby was born. Frankly, I never even HEARD of the practice until after my first child was born.  I read about some woman who was furious with her husband for not getting her anything after the birth of their child.  I remember thinking, "Huh?"  It just seemed to be a childish reason to be mad at your spouse.  Of all of the women I knew who had children, none of them received a gift from their husband's for giving birth to their child. 

 

At the same time, a husband may suddenly look at his wife as more of a 'mother' than a wife, and have some kind of stigma about seeing his wife as a sexual being once she's given birth. 

 

But quite often, neither of them will recognize or concede that their own beliefs might be a bit...off.  *sigh*

 

Quote

 

On connection - for me, it's about feeling viscerally that you matter more than anyone else, that you're their first call; which is why the other love language don't cut it, for me. Pretty much all of them could be part of any other relationship. Words can be said without meaning them, but sharing that physical experience (in the context of all the other intimate nonsexual parts of a relationship) is unambiguous. And because it's a physical connection as well as mental, it's that much more intense - our bodies affect how we perceive situations (have a look at this study: http://gaius.fpce.uc.pt/niips/novoplano/ps1/documentos/dutton&aron1974.pdf).

 

 

Quote

 

In the moment, it's not about two people having their separate sexual pleasure - it's giving and receiving becoming the same thing, and giving is as important as recieving. 

 

O.k.  I can understand that...

 

Quote

Afterwards, it's like any intense, shared experience - it just does create a bond that people who weren't part of it don't have. It's like a more intense version of the bond you get as a group that's been through a crisis, or put on a show. 

Hmmm...

 

Quote

Clearly, it's not always like this, for the whole, er, episode. But my experience is that it is fairly often, and almost always it's like that for a least a little while. So without that, a relationship seems tepid in comparison; and when it's been like that, but your partner loses interest in repeating it to maintain it, you lose that shared bond. It's that unilateral change, and the suspicion that maybe they never felt it at all, the underlies the hurt and resentment. It's not a sullen toddler refused ice cream thing

O.k., THAT'S the part I don't get.  The "bond" or "connection" doesn't seem to last for very long, if it's there AT ALL.  If you were having sex with a one night stand, do you really feel a "bond" with the person?  If so, it is still there a few minutes later?  Hours?  Days? 

 

Also, you wrote that it's (sex) "...like a more intense version of the bond you get as a group that's been through a crisis, or put on a show".  I can understand those kinds of "bonds".  But those people don't have to go through the "crisis" or put on the same "show" over and over again in order to feel that "bond" even decades later.  I have bonds with friends I've known for 40, 50 years.  We can loose touch for several years at a time, but when we DO "connect" that 'bond' is just as strong...and can become even stronger. 

 

Maybe I just put more weight on friendships because literally ALL of my friendships have outlasted any intimate relationship I've had. 

 

I've heard the phrase, "Marry your best friend" before.  But if the sex goes, and the relationship follows, were we ever REALLY "friends" in the first place?

[Telecaster68]

15 minutes ago, vega57 said:

O.k., THAT'S the part I don't get.  The "bond" or "connection" doesn't seem to last for very long, if it's there AT ALL.  If you were having sex with a one night stand, do you really feel a "bond" with the person?  If so, it is still there a few minutes later?  Hours?  Days? 

 

Also, you wrote that it's (sex) "...like a more intense version of the bond you get as a group that's been through a crisis, or put on a show".  I can understand those kinds of "bonds".  But those people don't have to go through the "crisis" or put on the same "show" over and over again in order to feel that "bond" even decades later.  I have bonds with friends I've known for 40, 50 years.  We can loose touch for several years at a time, but when we DO "connect" that 'bond' is just as strong...and can become even stronger. 

 

Maybe I just put more weight on friendships because literally ALL of my friendships have outlasted any intimate relationship I've had. 

 

I've heard the phrase, "Marry your best friend" before.  But if the sex goes, and the relationship follows, were we ever REALLY "friends" in the first place?

I almost put in an exclusion for one night stands and prostitutes, because those are always your fallbacks. I did say 'in the context of lots of ways of being intimate in a relationship' though. No, not one night stands, generally... but it might turn out that something you expected to be a one night stand is the start of something more.

 

The 'group bond' thing is an analogy, not exactly the same, but it does kind of work - if you imagine a platoon in a warzone, the bond is still there once they're back in camp, or on leave, or maybe a reunion years later, but it's not as strong. The friendship bond is a thing, but it's not as intense as if you're a couple. Even meeting with ex's after years has a frisson of what used to be, I've found, whether you want it to or not.

 

I think you're trying to equate longevity of friendships with the intensity of sexual relationships. They're different things. Romantic relationships (and I'm conflating sexual and romantic relationships as they're the same thing for most people, if you take ONS and prostitution out of the picture) are qualitively different to friendships.

 

As to marrying your best friend - I'd put it more that you have a friendship, it develops into a sexual relationship and coupledom. Then the sex goes, and you're back to friendship. If you're not, something else was going on in that relationship to do with sex or its absence. You could also switch it round - if this person doesn't want sex with me now, did they ever? It makes just as much sense.

[MrDane]

On 1/1/2018 at 3:11 PM, MistySpring said:

I'd definitely agree with you if it was in a different context but not like this where the one with the issue's description of it is way too vague and the advicer's ability to write a response is also limited for further contact. She is not a counselor and couldn't be seen as one because it is not possible in the format, anyone who writes to her would have to take it with a grain of salt. I think especially to me it is the lack of information from the lady with the issue that makes being so hard on Amy very puzzling just because she is just going after the little that was written.

 

I agree, that surely is true in a lot of cases here, it's human nature I guess. Can't say I have seen that in this thread though... I don't think it is so bad that it happens like that as long as one gets that to someone else sex and conversation can be of equal importance. Seeing many such comments like that around here like 'gosh how can anyone like sex' etc can get to me sometimes, almost as if I am somehow freakishly weird for enjoying such intimacy with my boyfriend but then again I do that to myself. If anyone would actually say that to my face they'd be a confirmed asshole anyhow and that has little to do with ones sexual orientation. 

The newspaper coloumnist/therapist should not ask to get an answer to put in the paper, but ask to make the inflicted parties reflect and ask/answer themselves after having read the paper. “Oh, yeah!? Why did we actually stop having sex? Do you remember? Was it after my nervous breakdown or when you felt so bad about gaining weigth? Did we also stop with other things?” This could turn out to be a good discussion to have. Perhaps the relationship is not getting better because of it, but they will have a better grip on what had happened.

[MrDane]

5 hours ago, Telecaster68 said:

Re the pregnancy thing - yes, it seems pretty common. Once it's established, the husband feels rejected and eventually resentful; the wife feels resentful that he's apparently not putting the new child first in the same way she is, and knackered (and of course he may well be knackered too, which just makes his mood worse). So from his point of view it's 'if we just had sex, I'd feel better and more supportive', and from hers it's 'if you were more supportive, I might feel less knackered and more likely to want sex'. Neither's wronger than the other, but sooner or later one of them has to make the first move, as with any stand off.

 

On connection - for me, it's about feeling viscerally that you matter more than anyone else, that you're their first call; which is why the other love language don't cut it, for me. Pretty much all of them could be part of any other relationship. Words can be said without meaning them, but sharing that physical experience (in the context of all the other intimate nonsexual parts of a relationship) is unambiguous. And because it's a physical connection as well as mental, it's that much more intense - our bodies affect how we perceive situations (have a look at this study: http://gaius.fpce.uc.pt/niips/novoplano/ps1/documentos/dutton&aron1974.pdf).

 

In the moment, it's not about two people having their separate sexual pleasure - it's giving and receiving becoming the same thing, and giving is as important as recieving. 

 

Afterwards, it's like any intense, shared experience - it just does create a bond that people who weren't part of it don't have. It's like a more intense version of the bond you get as a group that's been through a crisis, or put on a show. 

 

Clearly, it's not always like this, for the whole, er, episode. But my experience is that it is fairly often, and almost always it's like that for a least a little while.

 

So without that, a relationship seems tepid in comparison; and when it's been like that, but your partner loses interest in repeating it to maintain it, you lose that shared bond. It's that unilateral change, and the suspicion that maybe they never felt it at all, the underlies the hurt and resentment. It's not a sullen toddler refused ice cream thing.

The bold part and the part about maintaining the bond of being eachothers first call is very good. This is why it is not just always fucking, but also love making.

[MrDane]

I gave my wife the gift of being a good and caring and supporting husband/father. I also said to her, that I would always allow her to have the most important place in the heart of my children as long as this was the best for the children and my ‘job’ was to back it up. I didnt know I was supposed to buy her a thing? That would feel wrong to me. “Oh! You gave birth to our child. Here you go, you get a brand new car! ...and with a babyseat!”