kasey1,

Compromise: Definition:an accomodation in which both sides make concessions;middleway between two extremes.

Negotiation: Definition:discuss the terms of an agreement;to have formal discussions with someone in order to reach an agreement with them

Seems to me we are talking about the same idea.More redundancy on this thread.

O

*edited to add: exchange service with pleasure or please,that would be nicer to see in print.For me anyway. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" />

<small>[ January 11, 2005, 02:26 PM: Message edited by: Octobergirl ]</small>

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Stan-ley:
<strong> Today I promised my wife that I would not push the issue of SF anymore. I will not seek SF with the same fervor and will allow the chips to fall wherever. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">That's sad in a way.

Sorry for what you're going through. Your wife is entitled to turn you down if she wants.

I just hope that she can see how that affects you without getting defensive about it and shutting down.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by GBH:
<strong> Kasey... Like OG, find the word "service" to be offensive. For me, anyway, it implies that one is hired to serve another, i.e. like a waiter/waitress or in the sex context, a prostitute.

Now I'm sure that some Biblical scholar is going to pipe in here and tell us that one spouse is supposed to "serve" another (not being a Biblical scholar I cannot remember who is supposed to be serving who).

But in any case, the whole concept of "service" can be offensive to some, even if it's modified with the adverb "affectionately."

I'm still trying to figure out how to gently communicate my needs to my H. My efforts at communication, no matter how carefully crafted, tend to be taken with great offense from someone who considers himself to be right most of the time. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">well such biblical scholarship as I may or may not have I think the man is supposed to serve the woman in similar fashion as christ served the chruch and 'gave himself' for it.

however I think both spouses serve each other in many ways. I know my wife serves me alot and in more than just SF ways. I wouldn't have the opportunities or many blessings I have now if not for all that she has done and does for me.

I can see that if one denotes hiring in what they think of in serving then I can see that could lend an icky sort of feeling to it. I didn't mean to denote that so I'm happy to use a different word. OG suggests the word 'pleasure' instead. that is fine with me since that's the goal anyway isn't it? or at least part of the goal, connection, bonding, intimacy, etc. pleasure has to be in there somewhere I should think. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" /> ya know that spoonfull of sugar mary poppins was singing about? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" />

as for your husband's attitude. there is a fundamental flaw in what you describe.

in massage therapy the receiver not the giver is the one in charge. your husband doesn't seem to get the concept here. he can be 'right' all he wants but it's all in HIS own head. Right is as the RECEIVER not the giver says is right. So the most right he can ever be is still only as right as YOU enjoy it being.

The ego is an amazing thing isn't it?

ya know i'm going to suggest you let him worry about the fragility of his own ego and just shoot straight with him. I think he needs to be told that gratifying his ego is not the only important function of sex with you.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Garmus:
<strong> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Kasey1:
<strong> [QUOTE]Originally posted by Garmus:
while this is valid it does not invalidate the choice of others in how they deal with these vunerabilities.
</strong> </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I agree. I have no desire to justify affairs.

<strong> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">
I tried to repost your reply but it got too complicated with all the other reposts...

suffice it to say. I hear you.
I think you've got some valid points, apathy and wrong assumptions can play a destructive role. Some people do have spite also and that is also true. i wonder if you're listening to what others are saying. I don't hear some arguments you seem to hear. people are just making their own points why does that have to take any validity away from your good points?
</strong> </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Tell me what you think specifically I'm not hearing. Which arguments do you think I am making that have no basis as a response to what has been said previously?

This is not meant in any sort of combative way.

I am interested in knowing, but telling me without specifics leaves me with not enough knowledge to address it or understand it.

It's a discussion. People make their points. People respond to those points. I'm missing the part where I've expressed the sense that somehow the validity of my opinion is threatened by other people's points? Thanks! </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">the last two replies I read one to OG and this one to me clear up any concern I might have had that you weren't listening. I hear your points and I agree with the idea that people have responsibility to avail themselves and make an honest effort to meet their spouses needs sometimes even if they don't feel like it.

I guess I have seen enough of people going to extremes with certain points and I don't think you're doing that. i was just making sure. I have ptsd about this actually. i've been around too many extremists that DON't hear anything anyone else says unless it's exactly what they are saying and then sometimes they still don't get that other people are agreeing with them more than disagreeing <img border="0" title="" alt="[Roll Eyes]" src="images/icons/rolleyes.gif" />

thanks for your clarifications and your insight.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Octobergirl:
<strong> kasey1,

Compromise: Definition:an accomodation in which both sides make concessions;middleway between two extremes.

Negotiation: Definition:discuss the terms of an agreement;to have formal discussions with someone in order to reach an agreement with them

Seems to me we are talking about the same idea.More redundancy on this thread.

O

*edited to add: exchange service with pleasure or please,that would be nicer to see in print.For me anyway. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" /> </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">if that's as far as you develop the definitions of compromise and negotiation then yes it is redundant.

the distinction I'm trying to make is that concessions lead to resentments. if negotiations can be reached which do not require concessions it's better than not. too many times negotiators only work for the betterment of one side at the expense of the other. this omission leads to dominance/submission scenarios and it's unhealthy.

when i make the stand against compromise and for negotiation skills what I am really trying to get at is that many people only denote concessions with compromise and when they set that as their ideal they lose and the people they negotiate with lose also.

to me to say, let's negotiate is more mutually affirmational than to say, let's reach a compromise. in a compromise someone has to conceed, someone has to lose something. I see this as far more destructive than constructive.

I believe that people with mutual good will and some creativity can negotiate win-win solutions without needing to conceed or undermine themselves.

to me this is not a redundant distinction although it may fall on many deaf ears and otherwise closed or aarogant minds. to me it is something worth remembering and a goal worthy of striving for.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Slapnuts:
<strong> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Stan-ley:
<strong> Today I promised my wife that I would not push the issue of SF anymore. I will not seek SF with the same fervor and will allow the chips to fall wherever. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">That's sad in a way.

Sorry for what you're going through. Your wife is entitled to turn you down if she wants.

I just hope that she can see how that affects you without getting defensive about it and shutting down. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I think what I said about negotiation and compromise applies. This is what I see many people do and call it compromising. This resolves nothing, it damns intimacy, it risks nothing. it's coping out. it's selling both of your short. please reconsider your third option...open intimate discussion, sharing feelings, taking the risk of vunerability.
since you mentioned in another reply that you may be seeking to ameliorate something else what might that something else be? how about getting to the core issue and releasing sex from carrying this burden exclusively as the sole means for that amelioration?

Round and round we go,where it stops,nobody knows....


Kasey,why did I know you were going to pick out concession?

Concession just means something yielded and conceded in negotiation,at least in my dicitonary.It's all the same.Conceding doesn't mean always giving in and it certainly doesn't mean that someone consistently goes without.I am talking about a MUTUAL agreement,by both parties,to solve the issues in their marriage.If you are going to look at this negatively all the time then yes,someone will always lose.

I prefer to look at it as a positive sign that two people,who have come together in marriage,can work out ANY differences if they love one another and respect each other's differences and preferences.

Gee,didn't this come up before??? sigh

O

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Octobergirl:
<strong> Round and round we go,where it stops,nobody knows....


Kasey,why did I know you were going to pick out concession?

Concession just means something yielded and conceded in negotiation,at least in my dicitonary.It's all the same.Conceding doesn't mean always giving in and it certainly doesn't mean that someone consistently goes without.I am talking about a MUTUAL agreement,by both parties,to solve the issues in their marriage.If you are going to look at this negatively all the time then yes,someone will always lose.

I prefer to look at it as a positive sign that two people,who have come together in marriage,can work out ANY differences if they love one another and respect each other's differences and preferences.

Gee,didn't this come up before??? sigh

O </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">perhaps it did. I didn't get the impression that you were respecting it or considered it valid. I get the impression that it irritates you more than anything else. To me it's something I need to work on since I tend to sell myself out and it HAS meant that I always concede something. That's why i have to stand up for it each and every time until i get the habit down of not omitting myself from negotiations.

I didn't get the impression that you were respecting it or considered it valid <img border="0" title="" alt="[Confused]" src="images/icons/confused.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="images/icons/shocked.gif" />

Ugh.This is exactly what I am talking about.If you go back and read all my responses,I HAVE been saying this from the get go and I DO respect and want to see compromise happen more in relationships.Compromise,the word of the day.You have been tuning out what you don't want to hear and only responding to what you want to IMO.This is what happens in marriages/relationships.

If you or your W does this,it CAN lead to a preceived loss because you have not mutually agreed upon the issue.That's why,for example,many MC's and other counselor's have you repeat back,sometimes more than once, what the spouse or SO says so you are not just filtering it in a way that suits only you.You are restating it as it is said by the other.

<small>[ January 11, 2005, 04:02 PM: Message edited by: Octobergirl ]</small>

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Octobergirl:
<strong> I didn't get the impression that you were respecting it or considered it valid <img border="0" title="" alt="[Confused]" src="images/icons/confused.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="images/icons/shocked.gif" />

Ugh.This is exactly what I am talking about.If you go back and read all my responses,I HAVE been saying this from the get go and I DO respect and want to see compromise happen more in relationships.Compromise,the word of the day.You have been tuning out what you don't want to hear and only responding to what you want to IMO.This is what happens in marriages/relationships.

If you or your W does this,it CAN lead to a preceived loss because you have not mutually agreed upon the issue.That's why,for example,many MC's and other counselor's have you repeat back,sometimes more than once, what the spouse or SO says so you are not just filtering it in a way that suits only you.You are restating it as it is said by the other. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">perhaps you're still not getting that when you use the word compromise it triggers me to think of caving in, knuckling under, etc.

how about you stop using it now that you know it's not coming across. now that you know it's a trigger word and use something else like 'negotiate' or 'agree' for instance? something that doesn't imply conceeding if that's what you want to communicate?

I think what I said about negotiation and compromise applies. This is what I see many people do and call it compromising. This resolves nothing, it damns intimacy, it risks nothing. it's coping out. it's selling both of your short. please reconsider your third option...open intimate discussion, sharing feelings, taking the risk of vunerability.

I have done everything. I am a talker and I have expressed my feelings many times in a calm way. My wife is not a talker, but she listens. Our talks only work for a couple of days.


since you mentioned in another reply that you may be seeking to ameliorate something else what might that something else be? how about getting to the core issue and releasing sex from carrying this burden exclusively as the sole means for that amelioration?

I want to ameliorate sadness. I guess I could do that with conversation. I will fell my EN questionnaire and give it to my wife. But my needs are simple:

1. SF
2. Conversation (intimacy-starving for intimacy)
3. Leisure together

<small>[ January 11, 2005, 04:19 PM: Message edited by: Stan-ley ]</small>

How about we stop posting to each other instead? I am done with this thread anyway.I am not learning anything new and it's tiring to say the least.

Good luck to you.

O

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Stan-ley:
<strong> I think what I said about negotiation and compromise applies. This is what I see many people do and call it compromising. This resolves nothing, it damns intimacy, it risks nothing. it's coping out. it's selling both of your short. please reconsider your third option...open intimate discussion, sharing feelings, taking the risk of vunerability.

I have done everything. I am a talker and I have expressed my feelings many times in a calm way. My wife is not a talker, but she listens. Our talks only work for a couple of days.


since you mentioned in another reply that you may be seeking to ameliorate something else what might that something else be? how about getting to the core issue and releasing sex from carrying this burden exclusively as the sole means for that amelioration?

I want to ameliorate sadness. I guess I could do that with conversation. I will fell my EN questionnaire and give it to my wife. But my needs are simple:

1. SF
2. Conversation (intimacy-starving for intimacy)
3. Leisure together </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I hear you. If you want to talk about your sadness, I'll listen.

Kasey:

I have never talked to a 3rd party about my sadness. I can only talk to my wife and she is unable to give unbiased counsel because of the obvious conflict of interest. We have no MC------- nothing. Only this board to vent.

I would love to vent, but my wife is also posting and lurking------- probably not a good idea.

Thanks for you kindness!

Very sad post from my husband......It looks like he is ready to throw out the towel"!

<img border="0" title="" alt="[Frown]" src="images/icons/frown.gif" /> <img border="0" alt="[Teary]" title="" src="graemlins/teary.gif" />

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by kyellow4:
<strong> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">
Garmus said, </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> Someone who wants to make love to their spouse everyday is going to have an empty lovebank if he/she gets to once a week, with the other 5 or 6 days spent fighting frustration and rejection. Especially if their spouse begins ducking away and avoiding them physically because they don't want it to lead to anything else. Because very often a person with sex as their highest emotional need will have physical touch & affection filling in their top needs.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I hear you, and I understand, however, my greatest need is companionship, I like to play cards, or sports together, my H doesn't always want to play cards, he doesn't ever want to play on a v-ball league with me, he seldom wants to do any of that kind of stuff, sure he does occasionally, but I get turned down all the time. Should he always have to say yes to me, or is he allowed to have a headache???
</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Yes, as much as possible. He spends enough time with you pursuing things you enjoy doing with him and you aren't going to begrudge the occasional headache. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" />

There might have to be adjustments when you're dealing with physical activities - say, if you're a tennis pro and your spouse is the number one nominee for klutz of the year.

I think ultimately, it is the sense of *willingness* behind it all.

I used the same reasoning with my children. I said "yes" to as many things as I possibly could so that when I had to say "no" - they listened and understood. Because I had a positive history with them so they knew if I said "no" I must have very good reasons.

I see meeting each other's needs as very similar to the above. If you build a history of rejection and frustration, each "no" is not a stand alone occasion - it drags with it the angst that was engendered in the past with all the other past "no's". Build a history of consistant "yes's" and when/if life throws you a curve and you do have to say "no," there's not as much attendant negative baggage.

Garmus said, </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> Sexual drive is not dependent only on hormones. If a lower drive woman is married to a higher drive man, IF she is willing to work on it, she can increase her sexual desire and capabilities.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I agreee, we are achieving this. My M is completely different then it has been in years past, my love bank/tank is now full, where as before it has always been almost empty. This changes my desires drastically.
KY [/QB]</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Same here. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" />

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Stan-ley:
<strong> Garmus:

How about the brain chemistry change associated with new romance (see Helen Fisher)? In this instance the female is more than willing to give daily SF no matter how tired she is. when one is willing being tired is not an issue anymore. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Brain chemstry exists. We've probably all felt the early tummy flutters and twinges associated with the beginning of love.

Brain chemistry eventually dwindles. And if brain chemistry flutters is all that matters to someone, then those people will move on to the next new person in the hopes of replicating that experience.

But there is something more. Something deeper. Something less fluttery perhaps, but so much more meaningful.

Love is a choice. It isn't second-best to lust. Love is not a has-been substitute.

Which is more meaningful, following short-lived, hormone-driven physical urges or someone chosing every day from the heart to love you, care for you, laugh with you, cry with you, comfort you, share your past memories and plan to make new ones?

I know which I prefer.

Thanks, Stan-ley

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Stan-ley:
I would love to vent, but my wife is also posting and lurking------- probably not a good idea.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Probably... and that's the reason I'll write just a few things & cutt of other things in my mind... You wife does tries to understand you, but you can really understand someone only if you walked in their shoes... and writing some things could be misinterpreted or hurt additionally, and no need for that...

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I don’t know yet THE REASON OF THE AFFAIR. I don’t think it was lack of sex.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I didn't mean that either, what I stated was figuratively... <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" />
Nor I think she'd go back to OM...

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I suspect I would also have a sperm competition syndrome if she had an EA instead of a PA.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"><img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" />

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">It depends at what grass you are looking at. Some of it was much greener on the other side. I guess there were more dry patches than green spots. But, the foliage was very green in some areas.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Of course, some of it... but some is not enough...

... What would you choose - to be a great but temporary lust (as we all must know how long lust lasts) or to be married for all life...?

As any other choice, this one has a price that has to be paid...
(I admit that I 'swallowed' that part of healing with the most difficulties...)
And you are clever enough to know that our worth lasts much longer then any lust...
(Makes any sense? - I self-cenzore myself... <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" /> )

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Myrta:
<strong> Very sad post from my husband......It looks like he is ready to throw out the towel"!

<img border="0" title="" alt="[Frown]" src="images/icons/frown.gif" /> <img border="0" alt="[Teary]" title="" src="graemlins/teary.gif" /> </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I would not say so... I would say that you don't get his pain, dilemmas, sadness...

Maybe if you re-read all of his posts, and other BS's posts, and read them not as a WW!... that way you won't apply any post to your own situation, therefore you won't be self-defensive... and maybe understand more thoughts and 'logics' of a BS...

BELONGING TO NOWHERE--Oh my gosh, this is amazing. I get his pain, I live with the man. Now, does he get mine? n Or this is a one way street?
We have been married for 31 years, I understand my husband very well, I understand what he is coming from. What HE does not understand is that I am change, I am a different person, but he wants to have the actions and words of Myrta pre-affair. And that is not possible, because those two years changed me, and if OUR love is strong enough, we should be able to make it. But he needs to understand that I have changed. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Mad]" src="images/icons/mad.gif" />

MYRTA

P.S. I dont need to re-read his posts, he re-tells me lots of times whats on his mind and I HEAR HIM!