Thanks.
'Marinate in their own unhappiness'.
I am DEFINITELY going to try and remember that one.
Marriage a worthless institution ?
- Thread starter CaDDaFy
- Start date
Thanks.
'Marinate in their own unhappiness'.
I am DEFINITELY going to try and remember that one.
Taking this question absolutely literally, there are tax incentives to be married, as opposed to just living with each other. in other words, again quite literally, the state rewards financially the act of marriage (in many countries).
and yeah, marriage is disposable: it does not help that many people see as their role models 'celebrities' who treat marriage as trivial as buying a new pair of shoes.
and yeah, marriage is disposable: it does not help that many people see as their role models 'celebrities' who treat marriage as trivial as buying a new pair of shoes.
Absolutely, but which is the lesser of two evils? There are all kinds of marriages that though falling short of being over the top abusive are still malignant. I can guarantee you I was aware of the discord between my parents before I could even walk or speak, and simply grew more aware of it as I grew older. If the parents are unhappy yet stay together "for the kids" then everybody gets caught up in a complex facade that is rife with anxiety because at heart the kid "knows" (or can sense) that their environment is unstable. Worse yet, if the child knows (or even suspects) they're being fronted as "the only reason we stay together" that's a terrible added onus. No kid should be burdened with that kind of responsibility. Despite being able to intellectualize about the above, would it have rocked me emotionally had they split earlier? Sure, but in retrospect the environment I grew up in would have been much healthier; the damage to me less.
I think I heard it on Oprah or something lol
member006
Closed Account
Leave it to the old guys (Mc and jdb) to give good advice. :thumbsup:
For me, a long term relationship (whether you are married or not) can be difficult because over time both people grow and change. The difficult part being if they grow and change in different ways. If you are married in that case (of "roads parting"), when and what do you do when you realize it?
My parents generation stuck it out and remained married. Whether or not they were happy was besides the point. Now, I think, that there is not enough of that gumption to try and stick it out. For 20 years or so (arbitrary number), it's been more - "it's not perfect and easy, so I'm outta here".
I think that it will come full circle to a middle point. A point where you can say, like a surgeon, "I did all I could but I couldn't make it work." and then get divorced.
I totally agree with McRocket when he says that "I have never been more unhappy then when I was with the wrong person.". I've been there. The gray relationship clouds everything and gets worse as the months or years go by. You can, I think, even lose yourself in that situation. You can become so used to the fighting, arguing, lack of communication, lack of meaning and coldness, that it becomes your normal day to day. For me, it took a weeks vacation with a friend, in a country with beautiful, friendly women to see my way clearly again.
So, I don't think that marriage is worthless, if both people understand and define marriage the same and have the same idea that the rules and definitions they set for themselves today may very well change with time.
One of the best posts I've ever read here. Stop smiling people.:tongue: I suck up to nobody, its truly a great post in my eyes.
Exactly. :thumbsup: great post Imagine.
LL
Whoa! Let's break down the factors ...
I'm an American Libertarian, so it's all about fiscal considerations to me, and not emotions.
1. The "blame"
2. The "benefits"
First off, some people "blame" it on the feminist movement.
That was really an "effect" of something else as much as a "cause" of it, and even that is misleading. I.e., once women started working and earning as much as men, something that actually took over a quarter century from the '70s through even the '90s, women were more independent.
In reality, it's just that more women started leaving their husbands as much men used to leave their wives. How many men used to leave wives without support? How many women stayed with abusive husbands back then, and abuse was heavily under-reported before then. It's turn-abound and fair play. And it's still not completely fair either, and men still earn more on average, although it shot up drastically in the late '70s and early '80s (and the one, over-quoted early '80s study has recently been found to have been falsified -- let alone that was 1979 statistics!).
At the same time, alimony today is still grossly unfair and favored towards women, and men who are far less earners are denied while women who are solid earners are still granted it from their husbands. There is also the matter of "Roe v. Wade" giving rights to women, but not the same to men, which is currently in court (long story).
But for the most part, the "feminist" movement was about "balancing things out"
Secondly, to me, it's all about fiscal considerations, the "real" benefit, among others.
With all the people living on their own, single parents and the issues of medical coverage and what-not, I think it's detrimental for the US federal government to not encourage two people to live together. I think the whole "sex" issue should be thrown out of the argument.
If I was a single parent, and my best friend (same sex) was a single parent, it would be advantageous for one of us to work and one to stay home and raise kids. Why can't I extend my benefits to him and his children? Why does the government only give the pre-tax benefit for married couples, and force companies that even offer "domestic partners" coverage to do it post-tax and penalize what is really, in fact, someone else carrying for others?
The Democrats are so big on "gay rights," and this gets lost. Hell, virtually all Democrats (sans 2), including Obama ("against my religion") and Hillary, were dancing around this, when the answer is so simple, as I gave it above. The Republicans are so big on "family values," yet they don't see that carrying for people is the most Christian value around!
To me, as a Libertarian thinker, it's not a "morality" or "gay" question. It's about encouraging others to help others, instead of leaving it to the government. I'm extremely charitable with my money, as are other people. We are against the government doing things, because we know it's more inefficient than our donating our time and money directly. We'd rather help people directly, and give to charities we think help people.
If the government would step back and reality that the whole issue of "marriage" is about getting others to help others. If the government wold return back to "promote the welfare" 2 person families -- however they can do it, even if only temporary or otherwise defined -- and that would help us economically, socially and emotionally, all at the same. Whatever they want to call it, I don't care.
As I've said before, I could give a rats ass if the government says my wife and I are married. They don't define it. Since when is government a "role model" for marriage? They only exploit it, deny it and, most of the time, think they are above the rules anyway. As far as I'm concerned, marriage is defined by two people. It doesn't have to even be sexual.
Our government should be encouraging two people to live together, for fiscal reasons, as much as social and emotional ones. It's clear as day to me, and if I lost my wife, I sure wish I could move in with and share a house with a "domestic partner" that I could extend benefits to, at no penalty from the government. That's just wanting to help others.
I'm an American Libertarian, so it's all about fiscal considerations to me, and not emotions.
1. The "blame"
2. The "benefits"
First off, some people "blame" it on the feminist movement.
That was really an "effect" of something else as much as a "cause" of it, and even that is misleading. I.e., once women started working and earning as much as men, something that actually took over a quarter century from the '70s through even the '90s, women were more independent.
In reality, it's just that more women started leaving their husbands as much men used to leave their wives. How many men used to leave wives without support? How many women stayed with abusive husbands back then, and abuse was heavily under-reported before then. It's turn-abound and fair play. And it's still not completely fair either, and men still earn more on average, although it shot up drastically in the late '70s and early '80s (and the one, over-quoted early '80s study has recently been found to have been falsified -- let alone that was 1979 statistics!).
At the same time, alimony today is still grossly unfair and favored towards women, and men who are far less earners are denied while women who are solid earners are still granted it from their husbands. There is also the matter of "Roe v. Wade" giving rights to women, but not the same to men, which is currently in court (long story).
But for the most part, the "feminist" movement was about "balancing things out"
Secondly, to me, it's all about fiscal considerations, the "real" benefit, among others.
With all the people living on their own, single parents and the issues of medical coverage and what-not, I think it's detrimental for the US federal government to not encourage two people to live together. I think the whole "sex" issue should be thrown out of the argument.
If I was a single parent, and my best friend (same sex) was a single parent, it would be advantageous for one of us to work and one to stay home and raise kids. Why can't I extend my benefits to him and his children? Why does the government only give the pre-tax benefit for married couples, and force companies that even offer "domestic partners" coverage to do it post-tax and penalize what is really, in fact, someone else carrying for others?
The Democrats are so big on "gay rights," and this gets lost. Hell, virtually all Democrats (sans 2), including Obama ("against my religion") and Hillary, were dancing around this, when the answer is so simple, as I gave it above. The Republicans are so big on "family values," yet they don't see that carrying for people is the most Christian value around!
To me, as a Libertarian thinker, it's not a "morality" or "gay" question. It's about encouraging others to help others, instead of leaving it to the government. I'm extremely charitable with my money, as are other people. We are against the government doing things, because we know it's more inefficient than our donating our time and money directly. We'd rather help people directly, and give to charities we think help people.
If the government would step back and reality that the whole issue of "marriage" is about getting others to help others. If the government wold return back to "promote the welfare" 2 person families -- however they can do it, even if only temporary or otherwise defined -- and that would help us economically, socially and emotionally, all at the same. Whatever they want to call it, I don't care.
As I've said before, I could give a rats ass if the government says my wife and I are married. They don't define it. Since when is government a "role model" for marriage? They only exploit it, deny it and, most of the time, think they are above the rules anyway. As far as I'm concerned, marriage is defined by two people. It doesn't have to even be sexual.
Our government should be encouraging two people to live together, for fiscal reasons, as much as social and emotional ones. It's clear as day to me, and if I lost my wife, I sure wish I could move in with and share a house with a "domestic partner" that I could extend benefits to, at no penalty from the government. That's just wanting to help others.
That depends...
Withholding is often a power game, a punishment, or a way of making a non-verbal statement when one feels their words haven't been heard. Then again, it can simply be indicative of a major disconnect when it comes to intimacy, and if that's the case that's a major problem.
[1/2] Partnership, no "blame" only "unhealthy" and moving forward ...
If you don't believe in "The Church" don't go, and if it's your wife that "makes you go," then stop.
After all, you don't push sexual intercourse on her, she should not push anything on you.
I think you are thinking of your children first and that is the best "religion" you can have.
Don't worry, in fact, don't even fret over anything else, state you are in a "partnership" for your kids.
As Facetious says, find some sort of happiness in that, and keep focus on that, and don't think of anything else.
At least until they leave home, then you can start focusing on your own happiness, and that may mean moving on.
You are a man of great honor because you recognize this, and be proud of yourself for it.
Your children will be as well.
Have you two considered counseling? Have you looked to other avenues to address it?
Here's the end-game:
- Is it worth attempting to get her to understand, at least for now?
- Is it worth disrupting everything else, at least for now?
- Is it worth fretting about, at least for now?
I think you've already asked and answered these questions, even though it's grossly "unfair" to you in many ways.
A marriage is about not merely supporting each other, but pleasing each other, and she's not holding up that end of the bargain.
No one should even excuse that, a marriage is about pleasing one another as well as supporting.
You've "taken the high road" by realizing ...
"She was just never the right person for me."
That is, by far, the best statement I've ever seen -- you're not focusing on "fair," you're focusing on "compatibility."
I hope you are as understanding, but frank, with her as you are with us.
At the same time, it sounds very much like you are not sarcastic and do take the time to understand her.
If you stay, it's "going to cost you" and you seem to be ready for that burden.
If you leave, even after the kids are gone, it's "going to cost you" in alimony and other things.
You're a good husband, who is in a partnership which is not about fair or right, but mutual pleasure.
You've decided to put your pleasure aside in order to support your children, and for your own sanity, I hope you've found some peace in that.
It sounds like you have, yet you realize that it will mostly not last past your children's stay at home.
This man is committed to his children, and that is just absolutely or at least infrequently unheard of today.
It sounds like as "mother and father," they are fine, and can relate.
But his wife is not a sexually pleasing partner at all, and not interested.
So it may be that their relationship as "mother and father" works, but not as "husband and wife."
He's decided to forgo the latter, because the former "seems to work" -- again, just a theory.
Now here's the flip question ...
"Can the 'mother and father' continue to work without the 'husband and wife'?"
From what I've seen, this man is very mature and could handle it.
So the question is, can she? "The Church" is an interesting aspect.
It sounds like (and this is 100% assumption) that she is about "The Church" and the "family unit/obligation."
It's almost like she's "hiding behind it" so even suggesting the "D" word but staying parents may "set her off the handle."
Have you discussed this?
She has to realize that your desire is to have 'mother and father' as well as 'husband and wife.'
And that desire may include the 'mother' and 'wife' being different.
If such talk "sets her off," then she is too immature to handle it, while not being a 'wife' at the same time -- again -- possibly "hiding behind the church" because she just doesn't want to be a 'wife.'
And then there's not much you can do about that yourself, especially if you change the 'wife' she will no longer be a good 'mother.'
I.e., she is only a good 'mother' as long as she is your 'wife', and even though it would be because of her immaturity and lack of consideration that the kids would be hurt, you can't change the 'wife' because you know this.
I.e., you're stuck dealing with someone else's immaturity and lack of being a 'wife'.
continued ...
Gotta agree with Facetious here, don't even make "The Church" part of the argument, they have always been political institutions more than anything.
If you don't believe in "The Church" don't go, and if it's your wife that "makes you go," then stop.
After all, you don't push sexual intercourse on her, she should not push anything on you.
I think you are thinking of your children first and that is the best "religion" you can have.
Don't worry, in fact, don't even fret over anything else, state you are in a "partnership" for your kids.
As Facetious says, find some sort of happiness in that, and keep focus on that, and don't think of anything else.
At least until they leave home, then you can start focusing on your own happiness, and that may mean moving on.
Since that is the focus for your life and family right now, it's the main thing that is important.
You are a man of great honor because you recognize this, and be proud of yourself for it.
Your children will be as well.
And that happens. What does she do when you try to discuss this?
Have you two considered counseling? Have you looked to other avenues to address it?
Here's the end-game:
- Is it worth attempting to get her to understand, at least for now?
- Is it worth disrupting everything else, at least for now?
- Is it worth fretting about, at least for now?
I think you've already asked and answered these questions, even though it's grossly "unfair" to you in many ways.
A marriage is about not merely supporting each other, but pleasing each other, and she's not holding up that end of the bargain.
No one should even excuse that, a marriage is about pleasing one another as well as supporting.
You've "taken the high road" by realizing ...
"She was just never the right person for me."
That is, by far, the best statement I've ever seen -- you're not focusing on "fair," you're focusing on "compatibility."
I hope you are as understanding, but frank, with her as you are with us.
At the same time, it sounds very much like you are not sarcastic and do take the time to understand her.
Well, I don't know what to tell you other than the fact that it's "going to cost you" no matter what you do.
If you stay, it's "going to cost you" and you seem to be ready for that burden.
If you leave, even after the kids are gone, it's "going to cost you" in alimony and other things.
You're a good husband, who is in a partnership which is not about fair or right, but mutual pleasure.
You've decided to put your pleasure aside in order to support your children, and for your own sanity, I hope you've found some peace in that.
It sounds like you have, yet you realize that it will mostly not last past your children's stay at home.
I don't think it's even that right now, maybe later, but not now.
This man is committed to his children, and that is just absolutely or at least infrequently unheard of today.
McRocket -- understand your experience, but I think this may be different (although I don't know any more than you).
It sounds like as "mother and father," they are fine, and can relate.
But his wife is not a sexually pleasing partner at all, and not interested.
So it may be that their relationship as "mother and father" works, but not as "husband and wife."
He's decided to forgo the latter, because the former "seems to work" -- again, just a theory.
But is that the case here? Is the "mother and father" not working? That's the question.
Now here's the flip question ...
"Can the 'mother and father' continue to work without the 'husband and wife'?"
From what I've seen, this man is very mature and could handle it.
So the question is, can she? "The Church" is an interesting aspect.
It sounds like (and this is 100% assumption) that she is about "The Church" and the "family unit/obligation."
It's almost like she's "hiding behind it" so even suggesting the "D" word but staying parents may "set her off the handle."
Have you discussed this?
She has to realize that your desire is to have 'mother and father' as well as 'husband and wife.'
And that desire may include the 'mother' and 'wife' being different.
If such talk "sets her off," then she is too immature to handle it, while not being a 'wife' at the same time -- again -- possibly "hiding behind the church" because she just doesn't want to be a 'wife.'
And then there's not much you can do about that yourself, especially if you change the 'wife' she will no longer be a good 'mother.'
I.e., she is only a good 'mother' as long as she is your 'wife', and even though it would be because of her immaturity and lack of consideration that the kids would be hurt, you can't change the 'wife' because you know this.
I.e., you're stuck dealing with someone else's immaturity and lack of being a 'wife'.
continued ...
[2/2] Partnership, no "blame" only "unhealthy" and moving forward ...
continued ...
Yes, some people would view and possible even agree that as "abuse" but does that really matter? Seriously?
Furthermore, by calling it "abuse," does that really help your situation? It doesn't, but read on ...
Your 'wife-mother' is fulfilling the 'mother' part but not the 'wife' part, we've established that.
She has decide to not engage in your pleasure, and despite any excuse, that is just "unhealthy" for a wife-husband.
She doesn't realize that, we've established it, and all you can do is try to discuss it, get counseling, etc...
And that will "cost" you as well in your possible 'mother' relationship, so it sounds like you haven't pursued it.
So you stay with her possibly because, again, as I assumed above (which may not be true).
You know this better this situation better than I, and you have been through it.
I don't know what options you have even explored or possibly discussed with her.
Now let's talk about your options independently of her (below)
There isn't any "rights" here, there is only "partnership" and that includes respecting each other's "values."
The "values" can be incompatible and even very "inconsiderate," and that's just plain "unhealthy" in many cases.
This one is the case.
So it's not about "her right to dislike."
Yes, she has the right not to be "violated" -- i.e., husbands can very much rape wives, and that is a "violation."
But a wife who is not fulfilling her "contract" to please her husband is not about a "like/dislike," it's just "unhealthy."
Saying "you do not sound like you respect her THAT much" does as little for the discussion as him saying "I view her disinterest in sex as abuse".
I.e., it's really not about "respect" or "abuse" or anything when it comes to the husband-wife issue.
In a relationship, or even a discussion or any counseling about a relationship, you're not trying to "win an argument."
It's about coming to terms with how you will go forward.
I'm not saying that you didn't realize that, I'm just saying that it's a bit "unproductive" to make it about "respect."
He honestly respects his 'mother' completely, and merely wants her to be a 'wife' and that is not due to any "lack of respect."
About the only thing I have an issue with is the use of the word "abuse," not because of anything except that it's "unhealthy" to the relationship.
But her lack of respect for his desires is also "unhealthy" for the relationship.
Who "starts it first" doesn't matter, it's just "unhealthy" and that's that.
Just don't use the word "abuse" again, focus on "unheathly" and "inconsiderate" and the fact that your 'wife-mother' is a very good 'mother' but an "inconsiderate" 'wife."
Tell her you stay with her because the family is more than about your needs, and you love her as the 'mother' and you recognize that it's her happiness that keeps the family together.
But her lack of interest in being a 'wife' is hurting your happiness, and it is very "unhealthy" for her to expect you to be a 'husband' as much as a 'father' without that.
If she is literally hiding behind the church on this, then you need to disassociate yourself with any church functions, because it is not teaching her all values.
If she has an issue with that, tell her that your disassociating with the church has everything to do with her disassociation with the partnership in the bedroom.
In other words, I respect your desire not to be intimate, so please respect my desire not to be involved with the church.
If she says they are not comparable, tell her that all considerations -- from desire to family to spiritual -- are in a balance.
Now, what I'm about to tell you is rather "unethical," but I must ...
Depending on the state you live in, adultery may have no negative legal effects in a divorce proceeding.
There is this common falsehood out there in many states that adultery results in "damages" being awarded to the other party in a divorce.
Consult a lawyer in your state, he will often tell you this, that "adultery" gives her no financial leverage in many states.
And using "porn" is an even less issue from divorce, although it may be an issue for child "custody" (ironic isn't it?).
What does this mean?
Well, if you are not sexually satisfied, and she is not considering your values, then you may consider adultery.
Or you may consider porn, and just keep it completely out of the reach of your wives and children (or else, that will affect child custody).
Everyone can hate me for even suggesting that, but then you'd miss my point (continued) ...
For me, personally, I would divorce my wife before ever considering adultery.
Why? Because to me, as soon as I feel I must commit adultery, my wife and my communication has broken down.
And that right there would cause me to divorce my wife, because there's no sense in going forward.
In your case, I don't know, because you seemingly have good father-mother communication, but piss-poor husband-wife.
Other than your use of the word "abuse," it sounds like she just doesn't like to discuss it at all.
That right there is an issue in itself, a wife should be open to discussing your values and what is important to you.
You've decided to stay with her for the consideration of your kids.
How you proceed I don't know, and I definitely do not condone adultery, nor do I think it will do anything for you.
In fact, I think you will enter an emotional rollercoaster of not only guilt, but at some point in an argument, you will "throw it at her."
That is where everything will "break down" in many cases, and leave everything destroyed.
So, I guess all I can suggest here is ...
- Get counseling, "require" her to go as a 'wife' as much as she "requires" you do to anything as a 'father' (or 'husband')
- Get her to realize that family is about the 'wife-husband' as much as the 'father-mother'
- Find out what "turns her on" -- it may be that she is sexually inhibited in general
- If the church is making her sexually inhibited, or she thinks sexual relations are wrong, definitely get counseling outside the church!
That's all I can suggest.
continued ...
Okay, here's where a few things "break down."
Yes, some people would view and possible even agree that as "abuse" but does that really matter? Seriously?
Furthermore, by calling it "abuse," does that really help your situation? It doesn't, but read on ...
Your 'wife-mother' is fulfilling the 'mother' part but not the 'wife' part, we've established that.
She has decide to not engage in your pleasure, and despite any excuse, that is just "unhealthy" for a wife-husband.
She doesn't realize that, we've established it, and all you can do is try to discuss it, get counseling, etc...
And that will "cost" you as well in your possible 'mother' relationship, so it sounds like you haven't pursued it.
So you stay with her possibly because, again, as I assumed above (which may not be true).
You know this better this situation better than I, and you have been through it.
I don't know what options you have even explored or possibly discussed with her.
Now let's talk about your options independently of her (below)
Again, I agree it really doesn't matter what you call it at all, but that's not the point.
There isn't any "rights" here, there is only "partnership" and that includes respecting each other's "values."
The "values" can be incompatible and even very "inconsiderate," and that's just plain "unhealthy" in many cases.
This one is the case.
So it's not about "her right to dislike."
Yes, she has the right not to be "violated" -- i.e., husbands can very much rape wives, and that is a "violation."
But a wife who is not fulfilling her "contract" to please her husband is not about a "like/dislike," it's just "unhealthy."
McRocket, I'm going to try to to this with tact, so here goes ...
Saying "you do not sound like you respect her THAT much" does as little for the discussion as him saying "I view her disinterest in sex as abuse".
I.e., it's really not about "respect" or "abuse" or anything when it comes to the husband-wife issue.
In a relationship, or even a discussion or any counseling about a relationship, you're not trying to "win an argument."
It's about coming to terms with how you will go forward.
His situation may be different than your parents and your experiences.
I'm not saying that you didn't realize that, I'm just saying that it's a bit "unproductive" to make it about "respect."
He honestly respects his 'mother' completely, and merely wants her to be a 'wife' and that is not due to any "lack of respect."
About the only thing I have an issue with is the use of the word "abuse," not because of anything except that it's "unhealthy" to the relationship.
But her lack of respect for his desires is also "unhealthy" for the relationship.
Who "starts it first" doesn't matter, it's just "unhealthy" and that's that.
I agree 100% and have agreed 100% with everything you said, sans one.
Just don't use the word "abuse" again, focus on "unheathly" and "inconsiderate" and the fact that your 'wife-mother' is a very good 'mother' but an "inconsiderate" 'wife."
Tell her you stay with her because the family is more than about your needs, and you love her as the 'mother' and you recognize that it's her happiness that keeps the family together.
But her lack of interest in being a 'wife' is hurting your happiness, and it is very "unhealthy" for her to expect you to be a 'husband' as much as a 'father' without that.
If she is literally hiding behind the church on this, then you need to disassociate yourself with any church functions, because it is not teaching her all values.
If she has an issue with that, tell her that your disassociating with the church has everything to do with her disassociation with the partnership in the bedroom.
In other words, I respect your desire not to be intimate, so please respect my desire not to be involved with the church.
If she says they are not comparable, tell her that all considerations -- from desire to family to spiritual -- are in a balance.
Now, what I'm about to tell you is rather "unethical," but I must ...
Depending on the state you live in, adultery may have no negative legal effects in a divorce proceeding.
There is this common falsehood out there in many states that adultery results in "damages" being awarded to the other party in a divorce.
Consult a lawyer in your state, he will often tell you this, that "adultery" gives her no financial leverage in many states.
And using "porn" is an even less issue from divorce, although it may be an issue for child "custody" (ironic isn't it?).
What does this mean?
Well, if you are not sexually satisfied, and she is not considering your values, then you may consider adultery.
Or you may consider porn, and just keep it completely out of the reach of your wives and children (or else, that will affect child custody).
Everyone can hate me for even suggesting that, but then you'd miss my point (continued) ...
For me, personally, I would divorce my wife before ever considering adultery.
Why? Because to me, as soon as I feel I must commit adultery, my wife and my communication has broken down.
And that right there would cause me to divorce my wife, because there's no sense in going forward.
In your case, I don't know, because you seemingly have good father-mother communication, but piss-poor husband-wife.
Other than your use of the word "abuse," it sounds like she just doesn't like to discuss it at all.
That right there is an issue in itself, a wife should be open to discussing your values and what is important to you.
You've decided to stay with her for the consideration of your kids.
How you proceed I don't know, and I definitely do not condone adultery, nor do I think it will do anything for you.
In fact, I think you will enter an emotional rollercoaster of not only guilt, but at some point in an argument, you will "throw it at her."
That is where everything will "break down" in many cases, and leave everything destroyed.
So, I guess all I can suggest here is ...
- Get counseling, "require" her to go as a 'wife' as much as she "requires" you do to anything as a 'father' (or 'husband')
- Get her to realize that family is about the 'wife-husband' as much as the 'father-mother'
- Find out what "turns her on" -- it may be that she is sexually inhibited in general
- If the church is making her sexually inhibited, or she thinks sexual relations are wrong, definitely get counseling outside the church!
That's all I can suggest.
Married parents 'in the minority by 2031' (United Kingdom)
Be interesting to have some statistics for here in the USA.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/05/nwed105.xml
{I voted No}.
Be interesting to have some statistics for here in the USA.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/05/nwed105.xml
{I voted No}.
Which is why encouraging two-adult/parent households is priority!
That means going outside the left's "gay rights" focus and the right's "traditional values."
That's focusing on sex, which has no business in government.
I'm just a "dumb American Capitalist-Libertarian," and that means the government should be penalizing two people for living together.
Take sex utterly out of the argument.
Which is why encouraging two-adult/parent households is our first and foremost priority!
That means going outside the left's "gay rights" focus and the right's "traditional values."
That's focusing on sex, which has no business in government.
I'm just a "dumb American Capitalist-Libertarian," and that means the government should be penalizing two people for living together.
Take sex utterly out of the argument.
Re: [2/2] Partnership, no "blame" only "unhealthy" and moving forward ...
'I view her disinterest in sex as abuse...'
And I disagreed with that. There is no sexual agreement in a marriage contract.
And if she is 'disinterested' in having sex with him then that does not mean she is not a good wife either because we do not know why she is 'disinterested'.
My point was that he typed the following:
'I view her disinterest in sex as abuse...'
And I disagreed with that. There is no sexual agreement in a marriage contract.
And if she is 'disinterested' in having sex with him then that does not mean she is not a good wife either because we do not know why she is 'disinterested'.
I am typing what I think. And I do it in the hope that it will help him. It does not read to me that he respects his wife as much as he seems to think he does. And I think he should be made aware of that possibility.
You apparently believe he respects her. I am not so sure.