Somebody please help me....

[Mountain House]

28 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

I'm at a total loss as to how you can see her behaviour, as described, as anything other than a series of OP attempting to talk about the situation and her refusing.

Because I lived it.  What he has written here comes to us via his bias.  I knw that bias.  I have heard the same things come from my wife's mouth and saw it the same way you are seeing it.  I learned that, as @AceMissBehaving put it, we weren't even in the same book.

[Memento1]

4 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

The 'you two need to communicate better' replies seemed to be missing the point, that's all.

Could you clarify the point as you see it?  Just so I can understand.

[anisotrophic]

40 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

I don't think there's much more to say if you're convinced she's secretly keen to talk about it and find a compromise, but for some reason hasn't managed to show any sign of it for 20 years.

My partner wasn't, no. He literally wasn't thinking about me unless I pushed him to do so.

I get a book. He would only read it when I flip out and say "have you even been reading that book?" Then I ask, "did you have any aha moments?" No, he had none, words went into eyeballs and had little effect, apparently. But hey, it gave me something to quote.

It did involve me being very clear that I wasn't willing to continue the rest of my life with the bad "patterns" our marriage had. I was super clear about that. I started sleeping in another room off and on. (Each time it was another push for him to try harder. Burst of effort. Then he stops.) For months, repeated arguments where I said he still wasn't trying, he was just making a burst and forgetting about it.

Nice thing about him having a therapist now is that he's got a regular prompt to keep at it, I suppose. Instead of making it my job to flip out (again).

Recently he said that he doesn't think he "loved" me before. Harsh! But also, I think that makes more sense than trying to believe he was loving me through all the stuff that hurt. (Before that, "maybe you can find someone else to love you?" Also ouch.) But hey, we are where we are, he's doing stuff now. I've reflected that I'm probably a bit damaged by that, and he concurs.

[Mountain House]

4 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

I lived it too.

 

So how did you make any progress?

Come to terms with the perspective he brings to the conversation.

Change his language to "I" language.

Concentrate on his needs and wants and perspective, again, with "I" language.

Be aware that it is entirely true that this appears [to her] to be his problem because she really has no idea what this means.

Be aware that she isn't rejecting him.

 

16 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

So the fact that words came out of her mouth is grounds for optimism?

Those words, yes but only from my perspective.  It is anecdotal evidence that those words do not mean "Suck it!"

 

10 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

He's  tried a bunch of those, and got dismissed and/or shouted at. The massed responses of either 'well just get to her to communicate' and (effectively) 'she's probably trying, and you're not giving credit' seemed to be missing the point, as I said.

 Well, my point is in your sentence "she's probably trying, and you're not giving credit" so we do agree there.

Your point is that she is saying "suck it" based on your experience.  I think I've got that right.

[Mountain House]

4 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

she doesn't seem to want to communicate constructively.

And so you would agree that this needs improvement?

[anisotrophic]

Just now, Telecaster68 said:

This was essentially where I was going with my 'see a divorce lawyer'. Words weren't working, so try actions.

I agree that being super clear is essential. In my case, I think some actions that indicated I was headed in that direction (e.g. sleeping in another room) were essential.

I personally think "see a divorce lawyer" is on the antagonistic end of things, the sort of thing I would hope is an expected denoument – rather than an attempt to firmly communicate that one is unwilling to continue with marriage in its current form.

[anisotrophic]

2 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

OP had a box of condoms given to him on his birthday with the explanation they wouldn't be using them.

This is out of context here. It was given to him during their first year of dating, many years ago, during which she had already made clear she didn't want to have sex – a joke gift that's painful to remember.

[anisotrophic]

.

[Mountain House]

15 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

Which of those things have made a change to you situation, and in what way?

All of them.

 

If you're asking what the real breakthrough was it was me learning how my mode of communication was blocking hers.

Coming to terms with the monster:   Leap ahead to 2:13

 

[Mountain House]

The point that the monster in the conversation was me.  Not her.

 

The "Everyone wants sex" and "You know you are on AVEN" are red herrings.

[Mountain House]

25 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

For instance, I did all the things you mentioned, in my situation, and it made no difference.

Could be same for OP.

[Memento1]

2 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

Perhaps 'you, OP, need to improve communication with your wife' would be a better way of summarising some of the responses, ignoring that communication involves at least two people, and his wife was responding in an angry and hostile way which was often dismissive. Given he'd spent 20 years trying to have conversations, suggesting reading, and finally apparently getting agreement for therapy sessions, it didn't seem to me that telling him to improve communication with his wife was really addressing the problem: she doesn't seem to want to communicate constructively.

I see how it was read that way.  There certainly could be more effort put into showing empathy for the OP's pain and suffering, and assuring him his responses are understandable for what he's been through and that the wife carries her share of responsibility.  It's also completely fair to point out the OP didn't ask for advice, just a sympathetic ear.

 

Unfortunately, people tend to have an irresistible impulse to try to solve other people's problems (me!).  When only one person shows up, the advice will be tailored for what is within that individual's power to do.  Telling the wife she could improve her communication (she really could!) is pointless when the wife isn't here to read it.  If the wife was here, we'd be giving her advice on how to see his point of view and encouraging her to improve her communication.  It only takes one partner to change their behavior to alter a feedback loop (and thus the other person's behavior).  It's not fair, but it's what works.  My read is both individuals in this couple have hurt each other, both have had poor responses, and they're in a feedback loop of hostility and avoidance.  The logical response to hostility is avoidance.  The logical response to avoidance is hostility.  Someone has to do something illogical for the loop to break.  I give the OP kudos for trying to break that cycle.  It sounds like it's a recent development.  He said "in the past I may have said nothing and just bottled up my disappointment"  - that doesn't sound to me like he's been having open conversations for 20 years.  Not to harp on him - neither was she.  But I think we need to give the new dynamic a chance to play out first, and encourage him in this difficult step.

[Mountain House]

23 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

which mean they can kick the ball down the road.

I still point out feet dragging.  It is one way she deals with stuff she would rather not.  Understanding that our relationship is broken and how this incompatibility affects me has made my claims of this effective in reversing it.

[Mountain House]

25 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

But really, would someone who had any conception that the absence of sex could be emotionally painful give the gift?

Now we're getting somewhere.

 

No.

[Memento1]

8 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

Whatever, bland 'you have to communicate better, she's probably really trying', seemed... naive.

Absolutely.  It's the typical response that asexuals will say "you're not seeing the asexual's point of view!" and allosexuals will say "you're not seeing the sexual's point of view!"  Both are usually true.  Neither spends much time validating that there's a degree of truth to the other side because it's really, really, ridiculously hard to be present for someone else's pain when you're in pain yourself.  Lord knows that's true for me.

 

"A partner will make an effort to change when they understand the other's pain" is only half of the equation to me.  "A partner may make an effort to change when they understand the other's pain AND feel their own pain is being heard" is probably more true.

[ryn2]

1 hour ago, Telecaster68 said:

communication involves at least two people, and his wife was responding in an angry and hostile way which was often dismissive. Given he'd spent 20 years trying to have conversations, suggesting reading, and finally apparently getting agreement for therapy sessions, it didn't seem to me that telling him to improve communication with his wife was really addressing the problem

I read the original post a little differently, in that I got the impression the real attempts at discussion, the hostile, defensive responses, and the counseling were all relatively recent.  It sounded to me as though there might have been some less direct discussion early on, followed by a long stretch of quiet sucking-up-and-dealing-with-it on at least OP’s part, finally followed in near past/present by attempts to change the dynamic.

 

Maybe I misunderstood or missed something?

[Mountain House]

57 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

naive

Maybe, but it is working.

 

55 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

But what was the actual point, the incident

When I proved to her that I could tell the difference.  She sees none. When that happened she suddenly realized that I perceive at least that and maybe more completely different than she does.

55 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

This really isn't what happens in many cases.

I can agree that this is probably true.  I can't make her see my perspective.  I can only change my message and hope.  If it didn't bloom in her thinking then I suspect I would be shopping for an abode.

 

The other side of this education of mine and how I was behaving/believing is that I can no longer ignore my feelings like I could before.  "Everyone wants sex" suddenly wasn't true and repressing my needs in the hope of a better future came to a crashing halt.

[Mountain House]

29 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

For instance, sexuals have to change their behaviour to fit their asexual partners desire to not have sex, because anything else would be rape. Asexuals get caught between agonising over which is worse: a distressed partner? Or having sex? ... and oscillate between the two.

This kind of comes across as bleak.  I listed our prioritized approach.  My case and I'm assuming the case of the OP (he did state that they do have sex) is that there may be a suitable enthusiastic middle ground.  No rape, no unwanted sex.  If not, then maybe open.  If not then divorce.  Fixed.

[ryn2]

5 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

I assumed initially, it was a thing, then it died down because Life and Resignation, then intermittent attempts to raise the subject over most of the twenty years, but yeah, mostly sucking it up. Nobody has the energy to pursue it relentlessly for 20 years, and it wouldn't be effective tactics anyway.

I feel like this is the key point.  If there have been repeated cycles of discuss-fight-therapy followed by resignation, that makes your interpretation (that OP’s partner knows full well that OP is unhappy, and knows why, but is unwilling or unable to see that as a problem) more likely.

 

However, if there has just been resignation and the rest is more recent, the other interpretations (OP’s partner is coming at the whole thing from a different perspective and really didn’t realize how much of a problem it has been) are definitely possible.

[Mountain House]

8 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

I assumed initially, it was a thing, then it died down because Life and Resignation, then intermittent attempts to raise the subject over most of the twenty years, but yeah, mostly sucking it up. Nobody has the energy to pursue it relentlessly for 20 years, and it wouldn't be effective tactics anyway.

Nobody?  Only 20 years?

 

I concede that I wasn't getting no sex.  That's going to attenuate this a bit, but man, you're calling me a chump. 

Oh love, it makes such fools of us. 

[Mountain House]

Just now, Telecaster68 said:

If you read a lot of posts on here, it may be bleak, but it's far, far more common than asexuals discovering an enthusiasm for sex.

LOL, now we have to define sex and what it really means to the sexuals, etc.  But I do understand where you are coming from.  And depending on the asexual, they simply cannot discover an enthusiasm for sex.  (In the genital touching and PIV sort of way.)

[Mountain House]

3 minutes ago, ryn2 said:

 If there have been repeated cycles of discuss-fight-therapy

For us: dry spell-discuss-fight-(eventually)sex

repeat

 

Therapy during that time was really a sham.  Basically:  "You know he wants sex?"  "yes."  "Then fix yourself."

 

There will people that come along to explain what this has done to her self esteem and how this begets defensive behavior.

[ryn2]

3 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

So if I'm reading you right, she learned to fake it more convincingly, or at least, to your satisfaction?

I read it as “she was surprised to discover that her excellent faking was not as excellent as she thought, and with that revelation came further realization on both sides that they were not on the same page (, book, or chapter).”

[ryn2]

3 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

Well, given they'd discussed 'no sex' pre the condom incident, early on, something was being discussed right from the start.

Right at the start.  When she wanted to wait a year.

 

That’s the question, though:  was it discussed relatively regularly from the start, or just at the two ends?

 

Also agreed with whoever it was who posted earlier about how it’s hard to troubleshoot with just one partner’s perspective.  The two of them may see the same situation very differently.

[ryn2]

1 minute ago, Telecaster68 said:

Maybe, but what changed to make things better with Mountain?

The revelation that they were not looking at things the same way let them have the “same old” discussions from a new perspective (and with more patience with/good nature towards one another)?

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Telecaster68 said:

You'd really be okay with your mother discussing your sex life with your partner?

I mean, my mom has no issues discussing sex with anyone so my mom has asked me and my partners questions about sex before. It doesn't bother me. Has embarrassed some of my exes.  

[ryn2]

8 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

Fair. In which case, to return to the original point which brought me here: there's a partner who is open to engaging with the issue. I see no sign of this with the OP's partner.

After many years, yes.  If I read OP’s post correctly, they just started counseling and have not yet had an “aha”/breakthrough moment.  They still could.  They might not, but they could.

[ryn2]

12 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

But if it was at the start, it shows that sex, or the lack of sex, was an issue, and one which got discussed, which together with the OP joining AVEN 8 years ago, makes me think this isn't something he's been silent about until now.

 

One thing you can infer from only one partner posting though - they're the one who's more bothered about it.

Hopefully the OP will come back and enlighten us.

 

Re: bothered, I’m not sure that’s true.  The one who thinks there might be a solution - or even just a sympathetic ear - here is the one most likely to be here posting.

[ryn2]

13 minutes ago, Serran said:

my mom has no issues discussing sex with anyone

I think my mother would sooner have died than discuss my sex life with anyone, lol.  But also, like ceebs’ situation, I don’t think she actually knew me well enough in most ways to offer useful insight.

[Mountain House]

4 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

So if I'm reading you right, she learned to fake it more convincingly, or at least, to your satisfaction?

You're not reading me right.  In our discussion I explained how sex works for me.  What it means, how it feels, how I perceive the activity as a whole.  I described:

 

1. sex with someone that wants to have sex with me

2. sex with someone that want to give me sex

3. duty sex

4. pity sex

 

I told her that 1. is super important at least some of the time, 2. is okay and fun some of the time, and 3./4. are simply out.  Don't like it, don't want it.

 

Her response was basically "uh huh.  Sure.  That makes no sense.  You can't tell."  When I called her on it she was astounded.  Suddenly she started thinking that maybe my perception of sex was different than hers.  Now this all happened after I found AVEN otherwise I wouldn't have even known that we were in different books and imagine I wouldn't have even told her in the way I did and probably wouldn't have patience with it.

 

She doesn't fake it.  She isn't allowed to (by the rules of our current stage in the process.)  I have to literally suck it up, knowingly, on purpose, like a good little martyr while she discovers exactly what her sexuality is.  Did I mention that this is harder for me than her?  And since she asked just how different 3. and 2. are (playing to your faking it narrative) I've demanded that she can only initiate when 1.  I can't initiate.  (uh, I'm pretty much always 1.)  Yep I wait.  Sometimes it's a couple weeks while she tries to figure it out.  From my point of view the really sucky conversations happen when she realizes that actually she did want sex last night but wasn't sure.  <sigh>  But that's part of the discovery.

 

Oh, and there are expiration dates on the steps of the process.  Real communication keeps it moving.

If opening ends up the only tenable option and she wants to drag her feet then I will do it without her on a certain date.  Talk, communicate, work, or I move forward on my own.

I have declared that I will not divorce her.  I love her too much.  Except for this one thing we kick ass as a couple.  If we divorce, she has to call it and I have pre-agreed.

 

(divorce is off my list but it is still on hers and therefore ours)