I agree.

I myself get tired of hearing "he's an alcoholic so don't expect..."

how about just plain old "don't expect...."

First I was reluctant to admit he had an alcohol problem. Now I see it clearly but I refuse to just dump all our issues neatly in that barrel.

NC, in your experience, based on your perspective, and in your very limited sample size.

Do a survey, but please do not speak for the world.

Your experience is not my experience. I am selective about who I share my life with and do not surround myself who have these phrases in their bank of conversational cliches...

"Boys will be boys."

"All men do it."

"She/He had it coming."

Ourhouse,

I agree with you. Society tends to make an act OK because of the circumstances. That is a dangerous slope because where does it end.

A young man robs a convenience store. If he is doing this because of a gang initiation, our response will be different than if he is doing this because the unemployment rate in his city is 35% and his children are starving, though the wrong done to the shop owner is the SAME.

Another statement that isn't going to make me friends: Alcoholism has become an excuse because high profile people use it as one. Wrong behavior is wrong behavior. I have seen where poorly performing employees are let go. If one of them blames alcoholism, they are granted more time to straighten out because of their problem. But the wrong to the offended party is STILL THE SAME.

YOU are being wronged by your alcoholic spouse. The point at which he is cast out into the street for his destructive behavior should solely be defined by YOUR threshold and willingness to take the crap and you should NOT be told to modify that threshold "because he's an alcoholic". (What? Does the excess liquor in his system make the crap smell better or something?)

It IS ok to make statements like "Because he is an alcoholic you should EXPECT this behavior..." But tolerate it? That's up to you. That's your internal choice of what bad you are willing to take to get the good.

In my mind, if someone becomes an addict, they have already broken their marriage vows. Out of self preservation, I believe the offended parties vows then become conditional. ESPECIALLY if children are involved.

NCWalker: The folks on here are not encouraging me to cut my spouse more slack because of the alcohol. Quite the opposite.

I just have issues with their stock answer to every issue I raise about him. They say "of course he'll do XYZ because he's an alcoholic!"

Well...I don't buy into that. I didn't marry an alcoholic and some of these issues have been there since day 1 but I guess weren't huge issues because I still had stars in my eyes or something like that.

But his basic downright sense of entitlement....I think that supercedes the alcoholism issue. I think he succumbed to alcohol because of his sense of entitlement, NOT the other way around.

StillHere...

If I spoke for the world, that wasn't my intent. Where did I do it?

I agree with you. I call that "bumper sticker philosophy." If you tell me something in a statement that can fit on a bumper sticker, I can easily change it to fit my needs. The perfect example is:

"Birds of a feather flock together."
"Opposites attract."

Which is it? Like most of those quips, it is conditional.

"Boys will be boys." - Excuse: what else will they be? That could be used to justify ANYTHING a boy does. Doesn't make behavior right or wrong.

"All men do it." - Excuse: See above, though more hirsute.

"She/He had it coming." - Maybe so, but it doesn't excuse "what." Go through the checkout line with more than 10 items and you should have something coming, but what? Nasty comment? My can of stewed tomatoes at high velocity fast approaching the nape of your neck?

ALL things that can be used to engender agreement because it gives group mentality an out to not have to stand on principles.

Sitting at the bar with some suds and your buds: "He had it coming." says one, "Yep" the group nods in agreement. Easy out.

Here's another, just to be politically correct...

"It's that time of month..."

I am not sure what the goal is here, but I can tell you that when I had my affair, my H did NOT have it coming. Anyone who ascribes to that view has a serious problem with their moral perspective. I feel sorry for a man who would high five his friend for cheating. I feel even more sorry for that man's wife.

There are partf os Africa where it is viewed that rape is not wrong. So do I say, "Well, THEY say it's fine...." Not if I want to keep my moral compass intact and my butt out of jail.

Now bear in mind, I am one of those women who has a high SF need. And yes, there wasn't much of it going on when I cheated. But nothing, and I mean nothing, justified what I did.

I may sound like a Bible-thumper here, but one reason some acts are seen as more okay than others nowadays is because we live in a "what's right for you isn't for me" "there are no absolutes" "don't cramp my style" mentality. There are plenty of immoral choices that people make freely today that even a few decades ago would have been strongly frowned upon. I fully expect this type of thing to get worse, not better, as we "progress" as a society.

"But it makes me happy."

"I have Father/Mother issues." Or "I had a horrible childhood."

"He/She didn't seem like that type of person." What type DOES?

Excuses, excuses, excuses. We make them, we expect them from other people, and we believe or disbelieve them. But my opinion is, they are all a form of lying.

What it comes down to is...you want to or you don't want to...

What I believe is, anything is possible...if you are willing to work long enough or hard enough... (get it done or die trying...)
And the only valid excuse is...I don't want to...


So going back to the original question/statement. If a woman is not engaging in SF, she doesn't want to. A man can leave it at that, or ask why... What does he get back, is it an honest answer? Who knows, if it is, he has something to work on, if it is not, then there are more problems with the M than just lack of SF.


If the M is set up with 2 people with different libidos, then the couple can work this out...they truly can. They can come up with a workable solution using POJA. But my thought is, if they can't, and POJA doesn't work, I would look at other issues in the M too...

Another issue we haven't touched upon (or maybe I missed this post) women and men view SF differently. For women it is a highly emotionally charged event, and a measurement of commitment. I have often 'seen' on the forum where a WW can only have SF with one person...so if they are physically active with OM they cannot come home and engage in SF with their BS. I know this is a concern for men, especially after D-Day, and rightly so. If a WW is not engaging in SF there is a possibility they are still engaging in SF with OM or at least still emotionally committed to him. The ugly truth.

Whereas, not to be too general, but it is more likely a man has an easier time coming home to his BW and fulfilling SF after a day or weekend romp with the OW.

Am I wrong in my view?

Still,
"Sorry to get a little sarcastic here...but last I checked a marriage was between two people"- The last I looked when a S has an A there are two people in the M still, so how do you place the blame 100% on them?

OH,
"He remembers the "no thanks not tonight honey" stages being much longer and more frequent than I do. I remember the "white on rice" stages being much longer and more frequent than he does."- My wife insisted we had sex "last week". We went to the calender because SHE was tracking it, it had been almost 3 weeks. "He will do 2 or 3 things that he considers "nice" for me and want SF. And they are nice. But the underlying huge issues in our marriage still remain and as time moves on, those issues get larger and the offerings of "nice" mean less." - this is where if he isn't getting SF met, he doesn't care about that one night or the great bj, it's not enough.

There was a thread on POJA SF on Tue or something like that and a huge debate broke out about how this is wrong, that it puts strain on her. WTF?

How would you POJA SF then? lets say 1x/wk... what night? Oh, it just has to happen? Why not schedule it, but what if it doesn't happen at that point?

Dr. Willard was trying to get us to a point of POJA, but it fell through the floor b/c W thought it was not romantic enough and SF should just happen.

I agree with NC, I've read stories of how successful arranged marriages are, that would be considered sick in the U.S., mostly on the W part "she needs to find her soulmate".

Tabby mentioned a W might find that is all her H wants from her if he is asking for all the time. I can see this, but that too swings both ways. What does a SAHM want then? FS, DS? After a while H might feel like all she wants is $$, you see how this can work?

As far as responsibility...there are two parts to this. One person is NOT responsible for another person's actions...I am not a puppet, no one controls my thoughts, feelings, or actions, and likewise, I am not a puppetmaster.

However, in any given situation there is always something I could do or say that could change the outcome depending on how the person takes it. I can never know how the person will take something.

A friend of mine kills a person. Do I take responsibility for this? No. Is there something I could have said or done to change this event? Who knows? I can look back and think "They called the other day and I didn't return their call, perhaps there was something I could have said or done to thrown the balance off."

In a M where there are issues, each person bears some responsibility. If not, then that means I have NO control over myself. Our S has an A, that is their choice, their responsibility, and what did we do, or could have done to prevent it? And there are USUALLY changes we could have/would make in our M. So do we bear some responsibility? Yes and no...

Sometimes the responsibility of the BS is to have been too trusting. To have been accepting of opposite sex friendships, to not have listened to their gut about situations.

Most BS become defensive when they think they share some of the blame of the A... And the common language on the forums is to say the BS shares the responsibility of creating an environment where an A could occur.

Many BS argue there was nothing they could do, it was all the WS's fault and I think, how sad, that the BS is in a M where they blame, and also give the WS, all the power in the M.
So take back your responsibility, and your power.

My advice, from a woman's perspective, is SF is often taboo, not spoken of, a mystery, to us, and to other people. If we are "not in the mood" is is likely we are not even exploring the reason within ourselves...at least that is MY personal experience. I would welcome questions and an exploration by my H if he did it in a kind, unselfish, and caring manner.

SHMI - I like the way you think. The book "The Kiterunner" says the only sin is stealing. (And if you read why, you will agree).

You have done the same thing with an excuse. No matter how it's phrased, it is "I don't want to."

And a lot of this stems from actually recognizing your partner's needs as VALID, even if they don't make sense.

We can easily handle the situation of I have a need you don't agree with on principle, so we agree that that particular need goes unmet. (We are a couple with little money, and I really like drag racing. As a joint agreement, we have to put off my drag racing habit because of money).

We can easily handle the need that can go met. (Won't even bother with an example).

But when I have a need that YOU don't recognize as one - that's when it get's tough. That's when YOU have TRUST that when I tell you it is a need, it truly is and I am not being selfish. That's when you have to love me enough to speak to that need even if it doesn't make sense.

There are things like that in business we protect with contracts. In marriage, we protect it with vows. Which are only as strong as the temperament of the person making them, unfortunately.

STILL like what you say SHMI.

I was BS and I absolutely contributed to the M to set up the affair. It was NOT right what my WW did, but our marriage has stagnated. I was responsible for some of that.

Your last paragraph - You would welcome questions and exploration ...

In my situation, I was doing the things I should do to be a "dutiful husband" based on what I knew this to be. Most people would agree, watching me, that I was. BUT - NONE of that matters, what only matters was if my SPOUSE thought I was. Nobody elses' interpretation matters, (nobody else was involved in the SF, so why would it)?

Now, we did have a pretty extreme case, and my exWW was an excuse hound, which complicated the issue. But I learned these principles too late for the marriage to be saved (back to my education rant).

The whole time I was thinking "I'm doing what I am supposed to be doing, and getting nada..." instead of asking "What am I supposed to be doing?"

OH, they usually end up divorced because a) their spouses mistreat them, b) they only stop drinking and never work their AA program and c) the spouse liked keeping them dependent and sick. It doesn't matter what or why those behaviors ocurred in an alcoholic, that would be impossible to know. What matters is if they are WILLING to change. If they are not willing to change, you don't have a marriage.

But I also maintain that society STILL has some biases to overcome.

As the father, even though it was my S that had gone out of control, it was a close thing to get custody.

In a physical altercation between spouses, the knee jerk reaction is to assume the male spouse is the problem.

The general assumption is that a straying man is sowing oats, whereas a straying wife is ignored at home. (Point being there are men who stray because they are unloved and women who do because they are horny).

These mores need to change. And one of them IS SF. It can be a form of abuse. It is an unspoken way of saying "Your not worthy" to someone. It may be couched in "it's not you, it's me" or some phrase. It boils down to "I don't want to."

I don't want to go to work every day. But I do because I love my family and want to provide for them. I don't want to listen to my wife go on and on every time I listen, but I do because that is important to her. But SF - the smallest reason is justification for withholding. I am NOT saying there aren't valid reasons, I am saying there are a lot that aren't. And it really is a need for some people. In my case, it went beyond SF, she wouldn't want ANY physical contact. Hugs, kisses, sitting close to me watching TV.

Fortunately, I have found she was the exception, not the rule.

Why do you get tired of hearing that? It is the truth. He is that way because he is an alcoholic. An alcoholic has certain personality traits and you just have to accept that. I don't know what the issue is with that. I think the real issue here, OH, is one of acceptance on your part.

When a person drinks every day, a part of their brain becomes anesthesized. This warps their emotions and their powers of reason. The result is a personality type that is pretty classic.

And of course, the solution is very different, OH. Dr Harley clearly states that these principles DO NOT APPLY not to alcoholics. There is a reason for that. So it is irrational to try to and split hairs about which behaviors are from his alcoholism and which are from his childhood, or whatever. An alcoholic is an alcoholic. They have an entirely different emotional and intellectual make up that makes this program completely ineffective. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter a crap where the trait came from, the solution is still the same.

Of course. And no one has said otherwise. There are lots of addictions across the spectrum.

Mel,

I hear what your saying and I hear what OurHouse is saying.

I don't think it is so much that it isn't the truth, it think that in the middle of it, struggling with it, facing it, when you keep hearing "he's an alcoholic ..." as a qualifier, it starts to SOUND like it is a requirement that whatever follows the "..." is somehow excused. The statement is clearly not intended that way, but if I heard it over and over, it would begin to SOUND like an excuse.

Oh no, I am not saying it as an "excuse" at all. I am saying that MB concepts are of no use with addicts.

For example, Dr Harley will tell you that trying to meet the needs of an alcoholic is IMPOSSIBLE. It is a bottomless pit with them. Because they are addicted, the only thing that can meet their needs is booze. So when a spouse tries to meet his needs, she is obviously spinning her wheels. Another problem with addicts is that they are so self centered that they can't possibly engage in POJA because the feelings of others is simply not on their RADAR. It doesn't register.

In light of all this, it would be ludicrous to try and figure out what traits are from alcoholism and what trait is from something else. That is an exercise in futility.

Hmm.

Quick question: I have an alcoholic spouse who while alcohol is a primary need, DOES have other needs. Is the general philosophy that

a) I should quit meeting any needs quickening the fall and thus the realization that there is a problem?
b) Meet the other needs cushioning the fall and protecting the spouse who I (at least did) love to some extent?
c) A much better approach that you will now tell me?