**Personal opinion here**

After taking a break for a couple days and just reading,it is still clear to me that this kind of divide between the sexes and minds is what is going on out there in society and why,IMO,we still have a high divorce rate.What I see and hear from you all is differing opinions about needs and how to fulfill them and how much to.But the bottom line is we are not robots and are not programmed to be a certain way every day and cannot be everything to another person.If we rely too heavily on getting our fulfillment from just our spouses they will fail sometimes.

I sense a real pressure to be more than we are when we are all trying very hard here.It says a lot about us that we are even here,trying to learn and be better spouses even if the marriage fails.I keep hearing compromise being overshadowed by the idea that we should all just do "it" anyway for the sake of our spouses.Does that mean we love them any less? Of course not,at least not in most cases I would venture to say.But in my mind,we run the risk of losing ourselves to be something we may not be. If a person needs SF every day of their lives and just cannot seem to cope without it despite the reasons of the other spouse,then maybe you do need to re-examine what is most important to you.Having SF every day or being with your W/H.

If I had a spouse that didn't compromise with me about ANY issue,I know that it would lead to resentment.We are not clones of each other and the only way to appreciate and deal with that is to COMPROMISE.Like I said before,some may have to do more,some less but there has to be balance.It IS a slippery slope if you start doing things just to please your mate(their taker).It's great when you want to do it out of the love and care you have for them and I think most of would try to do it as much as we can but not because you are trying to live up to some,IMO,unrealistic expectation that a spouse or BF/GF may have of you.We are human and have frailties and fears.We have good days and bad and we all have many responsibilities.

I'm not sure if this came across how I meant it to but all I am reading is that we are all trying to say the same thing but get lost in all the words: we want to feel loved and be appreciated for what we are.

"There had better be a really good reason to miss it at all." <img border="0" title="" alt="[Mad]" src="images/icons/mad.gif" />

In my opinion,marital suicide can happen if you consistently don't meet the needs of your spouse.Of course.You repeatedly ignore the one you are supposed to love and protect and they will feel resentment and uncared for.That to me,anyway,is obvious.But I am NOT a child that has to have some kind of PASS or (valid only in the mind of the spouse)excuse to say that I am not able to or feel up to giving/doing "X" right now.This is where forcing comes into play and I wholeheartedly disagree with this idea.It operates on the assumption that I am selfishly NOT doing something just out of spite.There are valid reasons why we as humans do not do certain things at certain times and you have to accept that,even in marriage.There should be mutual respect for one another regarding how we feel.

O

Spot on, OG. My prior post could easily be applied to other needs, including conversation, affection, recreational companionship, lots of things.

Quite honestly, I sometimes think that during courtship, BFs and GFs go out of their way to meet the other's needs. They compliment one another, are willing to have conversations, go out of their way to provide great SF. Then once they are M'ed, they might think, "Okay, I have landed him/her; I don't have to try any more." They get lazy and no longer forth the proper effort. Fewer compliments exchanged, LBs come more often, and SF becomes routine and mundane. This puts the M at risk of getting stale, and it becomes vulnerable to an A. All MVHO of course.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by GBH:
From a W's perspective, I suspect that many a W would be willing to meet her H's SF need more often, and with less resentment, if she were assured that the SF act would be pleasurable for her as well as for her H. Does anyone get my point here??? If HE wants HER to "service" him (how I HATE that word), then perhaps HE ought to become better at "servicing" HER. Then it will be a win-win for both.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">what are your suggestions for better service? I'm inclined to believe that if wives want better service they need to be more willing to actively participate in communicating precisely where the service needs to be improved. There is alot left to guesswork sometimes and that doesn't really help the primary mechanic get to the right place with the right tool at the right time etc etc if you get my drift.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Which begs the question: Assume the H thinks he is awesome in the sack but in reality his W does not find his technique to be satisfactory. How does the W communicate her SF preferences/needs to her H without totally blowing his very fragile ego? </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">i'm inclined to believe these days that everyone's ego is pretty fragile. If that were not so I don't think we'd see the flame wars on these boards be so volitile. men don't have a corner on the ego market their ego is just wired a little differently.

in general I think the every day sex thing is really a screaming ego trying to compensate for something else. SF as an EN is not based as much in physical need as it is psychic and self concept. There is a physical element but it's very over played by comparision. it leaves plenty of room for misdirection and misinformation that an overactive ego is more than willing to misrepresent.

when a person's self concept and self esteem are based on them getting sex every day they are really walking on very thin emotional ice. That's a huge burden on a relationship.

GBH,

I agree with you that for some couples,they do let things slide when they get married.It shouldn't be the case though,at least entirely.I think that,as Dr.Phil says,when you marry you have a soft place to fall,the courtship and pageantry is over and you don't have to work at it in the same way because when you are dating,you don't have a lot of life's responsibilities facing you: home,children,illnesses,bills,laundry,etc,etc.It's all about the romance and getting to know each other,weekends away,you know.

This is part of what drew my WH to the homewrecker.She was a single woman,29, living with her prarents and had no major responsibilities.So,it was all pure fantasy,she meeting him at his apartment whenever he wanted(no children to tend to),going out to eat at restaurants whenever they wanted to( no children to take care of or budget to follow),seeing movies togehter,and so on.Each and every single thing WE did when we dated.

I also think very strongly that STALE is a negative term that should not be used toward a marriage.People have to understand that when you marry,it's not the marriage that goes "stale" it's the way in which we treat it that does.A marriage is what you make it,period.With all of life's resonsibilities and daily issues,the relationship will almost never be what it was in the beginning.People change,grow,regress too,and so does the relationship/marriage/family.It is an ever changing "entity".So to expect the very same out of it at each and every moment is,IMO,unrealistic.

We do however,need to MAKE the time to tend to one another within the scope of our abilities and time frames that life allows us.We cannot ignore the careers,children,household and family/friendship responsibilites,etc that are required of us.It is a a balancing act to ensure that all of these areas in our lives are tended too and granted,it does take a LOT of energy and time of which people do have some trouble making for them.That's just a fact of living in our fast paced society.

O

edited for typos AND Kasey1,please dispense with the word SERVICE to describe SF.It is offensive,espcially to me as woman.

<small>[ January 11, 2005, 11:20 AM: 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> **Personal opinion here**

After taking a break for a couple days and just reading,it is still clear to me that this kind of divide between the sexes and minds is what is going on out there in society and why,IMO,we still have a high divorce rate.What I see and hear from you all is differing opinions about needs and how to fulfill them and how much to.But the bottom line is we are not robots and are not programmed to be a certain way every day and cannot be everything to another person.If we rely too heavily on getting our fulfillment from just our spouses they will fail sometimes.
</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">The danger comes in when we come into our relationships with the attitude (even if it a subconscious one) of minimally meeting our spouse's needs. No one is saying that any of us can meet every need all the time. But if we come from a place of wanting to meet as many of those needs as we can as often as we can, a reservoir is built which can be drawn from during the times when we are unable to.

If we provide our resources to each other in a scarce way during times of plenty, when the famines come we have NO reserves from which to draw.

Does that make sense?

I don't think anyone is asserting that we must derive all our fulfillment from just our spouse. Do you really think that is a major issue in marital relationships today?

I think the opposite is true.

Ongoing sexual rejection leaves a spouse vulnerable to sexual affairs. Ongoing conversational intimacy rejection leaves a spouse vulnerable to emotional affairs. Ongoing recreational rejection leaves a spouse vulnerable to finding others who meet that need and the heart is wooed away from the marriage. Ongoing affection and physical touch leaves a spouse vulnerable to someone who touches & hugs.

<strong> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">
I sense a real pressure to be more than we are when we are all trying very hard here.It says a lot about us that we are even here,trying to learn and be better spouses even if the marriage fails.I keep hearing compromise being overshadowed by the idea that we should all just do "it" anyway for the sake of our spouses.Does that mean we love them any less? Of course not,at least not in most cases I would venture to say.But in my mind,we run the risk of losing ourselves to be something we may not be. If a person needs SF every day of their lives and just cannot seem to cope without it despite the reasons of the other spouse,then maybe you do need to re-examine what is most important to you.Having SF every day or being with your W/H.
</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I have found that given the right motivation, humans can be very malleable, flexible. We see it when the devastation of affairs hit. Suddenly, the BS sees all the things they could have done differently and often do if they are given a chance.

What if we go INTO the relationship and CONTINUE in the relationship with the attitude that this person is important to us and that we will be conscious of their needs and make a concerted effort to meet them?

Making it important means that your schedule may change.

Some activities may have to be dropped totally or readjusted. Not making it important is to allow everyone and everything else in your life to suck you dry of energy and time so that you only have dregs left from which to give to your spouse.

"If a person is not willing to attempt to meet their spouse's sexual needs and can't seem to cope with it, then maybe they need to re-examine what is most important." You can see how this is a circular argument that can be used to beat either spouse about the head.

I don't think anyone is saying that there can't be compromise. What I have said from the beginning is that lower drive women are excusing themselves of responsibility to meet their husband's needs in a way that we don't seem to find acceptable for any other emotional need.

Again, if one spouse wants to make love 4 times a week and the other spouse can only get in the mood once a month - failure for the lower drive spouse to give importance to this need and actively work toward meeting it rather than discounting it and leaving their spouse sexually frustrated and personally rejected is going to damage the marriage. Period.

<strong> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">
If I had a spouse that didn't compromise with me about ANY issue,I know that it would lead to resentment.We are not clones of each other and the only way to appreciate and deal with that is to COMPROMISE.Like I said before,some may have to do more,some less but there has to be balance.It IS a slippery slope if you start doing things just to please your mate(their taker).It's great when you want to do it out of the love and care you have for them and I think most of would try to do it as much as we can but not because you are trying to live up to some,IMO,unrealistic expectation that a spouse or BF/GF may have of you.We are human and have frailties and fears.We have good days and bad and we all have many responsibilities.
</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I don't think refusing to compromise is the issue. What I perceive as the major difficulty with this issue is that when the spouse refuses to acknowledge the importance of meeting needs and in doing so feels justified in avoiding doing so.

<strong> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">

"There had better be a really good reason to miss it at all." <img border="0" title="" alt="[Mad]" src="images/icons/mad.gif" />

In my opinion,marital suicide can happen if you consistently don't meet the needs of your spouse.Of course.You repeatedly ignore the one you are supposed to love and protect and they will feel resentment and uncared for.That to me,anyway,is obvious.But I am NOT a child that has to have some kind of PASS or (valid only in the mind of the spouse)excuse to say that I am not able to or feel up to giving/doing "X" right now.This is where forcing comes into play and I wholeheartedly disagree with this idea.It operates on the assumption that I am selfishly NOT doing something just out of spite.There are valid reasons why we as humans do not do certain things at certain times and you have to accept that,even in marriage.There should be mutual respect for one another regarding how we feel.
O </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Why shouldn't we have good reasons for failing to meet our spouse's needs? This only becomes an issue if the marriage is already having problems.
I feed my children every day. I go to work every day. I care for my pets every day. That's because I have a commitment to my children, my employer, my animals. I know that there are times when I won't be able to complete those commitments. But those are the exceptions. I don't try to justify working out on a *regular* basis how I can avoid meeting those needs because "I'm human, I can't be everything to them, etc."

No one is assigning spite. I assign apathy and wrong assumptions.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Octobergirl:
Kasey1,please dispense with the word SERVICE to describe SF.It is offensive,espcially to me as woman. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">what about your connotation of the word service do you find offensive? I'm just curious. I'm as comfortable using the word affection alternately but I don't personally find the word service to take anything away from affection. maybe I should say, affectionate service? Service actually describes what married couples do for and with each other pretty well I think. what other word would you have me use?

I just skimmed this thread so exuse me if I missed anything.

Pre-A my wife and I engaged in SF 1-2 times a day almost without exception. It usually WAS her "servicing" me and trying to be the perfect wife. The problem is something was missing ofcourse. It felt routine and lacked passion. I got lazy in making it good for her. She usually enjoyed climax but did most of the "work" herself. When we separated for a short time after dday SF continued about a week later. Everything changed, OMG the lust returned! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" />
It was like NOTHING we had ever experienced. ***Please excuse me if this gets too graffic*** That first time we had sex after dday she had an O from recieving oral from me, this is something that was impossible before no matter how hard I tried. Believe me I tried for 7 years. It was a first for her (with anybody). These days I take my time. I have connected with what she needs from SF and things have continued to be this good since dday. I put as much effort into her as she does to me and sex is always enthusiastic. Try this guys - satisfy your wife (without satisfying yourself) then kiss her, hold her and then go to sleep! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Razz]" src="images/icons/tongue.gif" />

Edited to say excuse me for using the word "service". I don't mean to offend.

<small>[ January 11, 2005, 11:46 AM: Message edited by: SleeplessInSF ]</small>

Garmus,

You are part of what I see as the "problem" here as I have read.You talk in circles and it appears you have not "heard" anything I posted.You circle back and assume a position of selfishness and worse case scenarios of people that I did not start from.I bet if you and I were the only ones posting,we would go on forever because you are not listening to what I said and would not see eye to eye and if we were a married couple,this would spell disaster.An exapmle is the quote I posted.I did not say it,another person did,hence the quotes.I DID suggest that we do have legimate reasons not to fill needs but don't need the "permission" or acceptance of any one to legitimize it(i.e. the spouse).

I have to go do some errands but want to address this in detail and I do not have the tme right now.

I will be back later.

O

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Garmus:
The danger comes in when we come into our relationships with the attitude (even if it a subconscious one) of minimally meeting our spouse's needs. No one is saying that any of us can meet every need all the time. But if we come from a place of wanting to meet as many of those needs as we can as often as we can, a reservoir is built which can be drawn from during the times when we are unable to.

If we provide our resources to each other in a scarce way during times of plenty, when the famines come we have NO reserves from which to draw.

Does that make sense? </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">i don't see alot of validation going on this thread and there IS alot of valid and insighful things being shared. let me thank you for your insight. It makes good sense what you say. Being human and not almighty no one can meet every need for someone else and in fact that would be somewhat damning to that person's development and autonomy if they did. the goal of meeting other's needs is not to make them dependent on us or shouldn't be. love doesn't want to create dependency it wants to share mutual growing capacity and wholeness with another equally growing person. Having an attitude of willingness however is very essential to a mutually happy relationship. If willingness is abscent or lacking that is felt on another level and is a hurt all it's own somewhat independent of the issue of capacity.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I don't think anyone is asserting that we must derive all our fulfillment from just our spouse. Do you really think that is a major issue in marital relationships today?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">while it may not be all encompasing of every relationship I do know some relatationships that this is a significantly major factor. I observe that in many people I see where they are trying to get more fulfillment out of their spouse than out of developing their own autonomous life and it typically leads to disappointment and resentments.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I think the opposite is true.

Ongoing sexual rejection leaves a spouse vulnerable to sexual affairs. Ongoing conversational intimacy rejection leaves a spouse vulnerable to emotional affairs. Ongoing recreational rejection leaves a spouse vulnerable to finding others who meet that need and the heart is wooed away from the marriage. Ongoing affection and physical touch leaves a spouse vulnerable to someone who touches & hugs.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">while this is valid it does not invalidate the choice of others in how they deal with these vunerabilities.

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?

if i wanted to take issue with one word it would be compromise. compromise has often led to disappointments and resentments. I think it would be much better for people to validate themselves and their wants and desires and negotiate for them honestly and up front than to short change themselves thru compromise. it's easy to call a taker evil and a giver good but doing so destroys the balance that happiness springs from.

I find that the validation of both giver and taker's roles and the negotiation of both sides is preferable to compromising either side.

<small>[ January 11, 2005, 12:09 PM: Message edited by: Kasey1 ]</small>

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.

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

You are part of what I see as the "problem" here as I have read.You talk in circles and it appears you have not "heard" anything I posted.You circle back and assume a position of selfishness and worse case scenarios of people that I did not start from.
</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Please quote any of what I have posted where I have said that "selfishness" is the problem.

I *have* said that it wasn't malicious or spiteful. I *have* said that it is often based on a false assumption and a good dose of apathy.

The false assumption is that women only have two options "hormonally induced lust" or "duty sex." And that if they aren't hormonally inclined then they can rest in the comfort that it is okay to avoid their husband's overtures for sex. With the alternative being some sense of laying there while thinking of England and doing it for God and country.

Those are the assumptions with which I disagree.

The other false assumption seems to be that sexual needs aren't as important as the other emotional needs.

I know in relationships where sexual discrepancy is an issue, that there are days/weeks/ sometimes months when that need is not being met.

Do we find that *acceptable* or *justifiable* for any other emotional need based on being too tired, hormones, just human, etc.?

Yes or no?

I don't know what worse case scenario you might be referencing. Sexual discrepancy exists. IMO, it is the number one reason marriages tank.

If that is so, it would behoove those of us who want to have successful marriages (either now or in the future) to know what it is about sexual needs that is causing problems in marriages.

<strong> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">
I bet if you and I were the only ones posting,we would go on forever because you are not listening to what I said and would not see eye to eye and if we were a married couple,this would spell disaster.
</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I am listening. You think that there are legitimate reasons for not meeting your spouse's emotional needs.

I don't disagree with the premise.

I disagree with the foundation from which you make it.

I disagree with what appears to me to be the tendency to discount the responsibity to meet one another's need by saying things such as:

"bottom line is we are not robots and are not programmed to be a certain way every day"
"cannot be everything to another person"
"No one can meet everyone's needs all the time."
"We are human and have frailties and fears"

This is what I say to that.

I agree.

But that isn't the issue.

I can only assume that the idea of engaging in daily sex with your spouse is one that you consider impossible to meet. Please correct me if I have misunderstood.

<strong> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">
An exapmle is the quote I posted.I did not say it,another person did,hence the quotes.I DID suggest that we do have legimate reasons not to fill needs but don't need the "permission" or acceptance of any one to legitimize it(i.e. the spouse).
</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">But there is a great deal of difference between having a good reason and getting "permission."

I reiterate the famine in the land of plenty analogy. If regular "deposits" are made in our marriages, then when real legitimate interruptions to our ability to meet those needs arises - we have established a reservoir from which we can draw.

If sex becomes a cat and mouse game when there aren't any really good reasons (poor reasons such as ongoing longterm overscheduling, voluntary over-commitments to things/people outside the marriage, choosing a tv show over time with spouse, etc.) then when a major illness, emotional upheaval, short-term work demands, extended family problems occur - the spouse who has been continually frustrated is not going to have anything in their "bank" to draw from - and the marriage may suffer an irrevokable wound.

</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!

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.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Myrta:
<strong>If your spouse thinks that he can have sex whenever he feels like it,whether you want to or not, there is a big problem in the marriage.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"></strong>

I'm not advocating pushing your partner into having sex if they're dead-set against it, , but what's wrong with assuming that your partner is generally available for sex?

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"><strong>He just gets kind of angry,frustrated with me if I refuse him sometimes. I dont think he should be this way anymore. I am with him, I am here to stay, I want to stay married to him, he knows this. He does not need constant reassurance of my love and desire for him. He knows I love him with all my heart!</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"></strong>

I'm not familiar with your situation, but maybe he does need reassurance.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Stan-ley:
<strong>The issue of daily sex is the result of the affair. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Oh, I guess I should have read this.

There you go, he does need reassurance. I guess it's up to you what you do with that information.

Slap:

I don't know what it is. I did not get out of bed one day and decided I wanted to have a lot of SF. I simply feel like having SF since D-day---- up until them I was fine. I am not a sex addict or anything remotely similar.

I know this is a selfish position and I take full responsibility for it. Today I promised my wife that I would not push the issue of SF anymore. Perhaps I am selfish or maybe have gotten used to the fix of SF to ameliorate the pains of the heart. IN any event I will not seek SF with the same fervor and will allow the chips to fall wherever.

I don’t think of me as insecure, but if this is insecurity and low self-esteem it really sucks.

<small>[ January 11, 2005, 01:50 PM: Message edited by: Stan-ley ]</small>

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Stan-ley:
I don't know what it is. I did not get out of bed one day and decided I wanted to have a lot of SF. I simply feel like having SF since D-day---- up until them I was fine. I am not a sex addict or anything remotely similar.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">My previous post was for you, Stan.
Any comment? Thinking about?
(Just curious <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" /> )

It seems to me what is being argued is an “idea”, namely, that if two people “love” each other would there be the possibility for everyday sex? I think as an ideal, that that is a fair question, and possibly achievable at least intellectually if nothing else. I don’t think it is practical in a real marriage.

Often real-life rears its ugly head and sex just isn’t going to happen that day; or perhaps for a string of days. Further, if it was an everyday expectation and in fact was done daily, for years, I believe I would approach it with the same enthusiasm I muster for brushing my teeth.

If people wish to remain married then they will compromise on all these EN issues. I’m sure my wife would rather I make a million a year . . . I’m just glad she doesn’t pout, whine and complain every day that I don’t make that sum of cash. God, I would really not want to be expected to hold the power of some else’s happiness. I think that expecting some else to somehow fulfill you is a losing proposition.

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

Garmus,

The danger comes in when we come into our relationships with the attitude(even if it a subconscious one) of minimally meeting our spouses needs.

Most people in my experience and whom I know DO start off trying to make eachother happy(by filling needs)as much as they can,not minimally,and it's a journey of finding out what does make us happy in our relationships,what we need from each other.I am not so "pessimistic" to think that most people think as you do on this topic.On the contrary,I was very open and willing to meet my BF's(later WH) needs when we first started dating,I did want to please him and vice versa.It was a big turn on to see him happy and fulfilled.

If we provide our resources? to each other in a scarce way during times of plenty,when the famines come we have no reserves from which to draw

This to me is not clear.Resources meaning abilities to fulfill needs? We are not talking about food.Again this speaks to what I said later in another post to you about "selfishness".Assuming that most or all of us are entering into a relationship with the idea of giving as little as possible to the other person we are dating or starting a relationship with and only looking out for "me".I don't think that is true in most cases.Whose to say when times are "Plenty"? I do not understand this statement.Times of plenty? When it comes to marriage and especially those that have children and families with health issues,etc,times of plenty are just not there in many cases.It's a balancing act to attend to all our loved ones and make sure the dog is fed,the bills are paid,the laundry gets done,etc.Let alone taking time for self.

I don't think anyone is asserting that we must derive all our fulfillment from just our spouse.Do you really think that is a major issue in marital relationships today? I think the opposite is true.

I do agree that in some marriages this seems to be the case,again,speaking from my experience and being here over a year.The ongoing debate about why some spouses cheat will continue but one theme that has appeared to me over the past year+ is that when a spouse depends heavily on the other for being "happy" and when the other spouse fails to ensure this,whether or not it's solely based on unmet EN's(this is still not 100% believable to many of us here) or some other cause or causes,the choice to try and find this fulfillment outside the marriage becomes a possible "answer" to one of the spouses and it's increasingly becoming an issue in today's marriages as the rising numbers of Infidelity seem to support.The idea that,"If I can't get what I want at home then I am going elswhere to get it".I like to think of myself as an example in that I had not placed all my needs on my WH and had many other areas to make myself enjoy life and feel fulfilled.There were many that my WH did not fill,for many years but to me it was not somehting I would leave him for or go have sex with another man for.

Any unmet need does have a role in how the spouse feels as do other issues but it will always be 100% the fault of the adultering spouse to make that CHOICE,no one is holding a gun to your head and say CHEAT.Whether it's unmet needs,abuse,drug use,porn issues,career issues,financial issues,etc,etc.there are more appropriate and less hurtful and destructive means with which to express a loss,need or problem.Having sex with some other man or woman while STILL MARRIED will never be justification for anything but selfishness.

Suddenly,the BS sees all the "things" they could have done differently and often do if they are given a chance.

In my opinion,this is a special circumstance that happens when the severe trauma of finding out about the betrayal comes into play.Of course we all want to know what went wrong and are hurting so badly that we will do anyhting to try and fix what happened and make the pain go away.But,after some time has passed,whatever it was that the WS felt was lacking or whatever it was that THEY were going through at the time to make the CHOICE to cheat,many BS's start to realize that this isn't about me,it's about my WS and they have a problem.This becomes even more clear in Plan B when the pain starts to subside a little after being away from the selfish and hurtful actions and statements of a WS.Things weren't so bad at home as you were lead to believe but it becomes more about,what the WS did not safeguard and protect(spouse,marriage,family).Boundaries were crossed,MLC's come into play(some people),the grass is greener effect also comes into play when you have an OP who is manipulating and encouraging our H/W's away.It's a combination of both the actions of the WS and the OP.The BS may have played a role too in how the WS felt but again,IMO,there is no excuse or justification ever for adultery.Leave the marriage first and get a D.

What if we go INTO the realtionship and CONTINUE in the relationship with the attitude that this person is important to us and that we will be conscious of their needs and make a concerted effort to meet them

Many of us having been saying this all along.This is redundant.I think most of us already feel this way,did feel this way before the adultery and still do.I know I did.My WH was the most important person to me besides my children before his cheating but a person does not only cheat due to unmet needs.There are other factors and this statement does not factor that in when considering Infidelity.Which this message board is about.

Anyway,you must have had a lot of time to dissect all of my post and I am realizing I am spending too much of my time on this particular one.I could go on and on addressing all your rebuttals too but I cannot.I would like to respond to other's.

The main point I wanted to convey is that readdressing an issue that has already been discussed many times and rewording it as another "insightful" question or statement is what is keeping this thread alive.Thus far I have not learned any new information that wasn't covered pages back.

O

P.S. Edited to add: The last paragraph I also take issue with. I don't try to justify working out on a *regular* basis how I can avoid meeting those needs because "I'm human,I can't be everything to them,etc" Well,just what would be allowable in your world to avoid meeting a need? I AM HUMAN as are we all,it's a fact and unless this is misinterpreted,I don't see how you can ignore this as a valid consideration.If I have a stomach ache,as an example,and am feeling poorly,am I still expected to have sex with my H if I am not feeling up to it? Is it not human to feel ill once in a while and not feel up to sex or walking the dog or playing one more game of chess with your child? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Roll Eyes]" src="images/icons/rolleyes.gif" />

<small>[ January 11, 2005, 07:49 PM: Message edited by: Octobergirl ]</small>

Belonging:

IMO, it’s not SF frequency needs issue, but – trust issue… You should find more fulfilling ways to regain the trust, and she has to understand and help you find the more successful way…
You need a reassurance she’ll never be with OM (or any other man) and you seek for it through you sex life…
In your mind, she had sex with other man -> she must had been in luck of it prior to A?

Good comments. I don’t know yet THE REASON OF THE AFFAIR. I don’t think it was lack of sex. I suspect I would also have a sperm competition syndrome if she had an EA instead of a PA.

She is not going back to OM. I am 100% sure of that and I even trust her regarding this. SO in a sense my actions are illogical.


I.e. now, you think the more you ‘give her sex’ the less she’ll ever be tempted to want having it with someone else? Somehow you correlate sex frequency with (her) love, belonging to you, commitment to M and never repeating cheating…?

Like I said above--- she is not going back to OM. If she does I would really be in shock. I think I am a victim of altered brain chemistry. However, I would venture to say that it would be virtually impossible for a women to have an affair is she is having daily SF with the H.

You torture yourself, and not only by doing this…
This might help you (and it is really truth!) - The grass ‘over there’ is not! greener; otherwise your S would be there right now…

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.