Tuesday, July 23, 2013

Alpha Mail: more sexlessness

FE wants to know how long is long enough? 
"Sex is not the entirety of marriage, but it is a foundation and a necessary aspect of it.  A sexless marriage is intrinsically oxymoronic and cannot be expected to last without an amount of external support."

So how long?

Another (recent) reader seeking your opinion.  I married a 34 yo virgin three years ago.  I am x years older.  Sex was down to twice a week within a year.  Stopped completely [two years] into the marriage.  Now she has decided that I am not allowed to even *touch* her without asking permission.  She says that I frighten her -- even while acknowledging that I have never been violent, never been verbally abusive, never even raised my voice in anger.  Her main complaints are that I am a poor listener (past girlfriends would say I'm pretty good, for a guy) and that I turned to porn when I was unsatisfied sexually (guilty as charged -- and I've since made much progress in giving it up).

It's now been 8 months with the no sex.  Our Christian counselor is perplexed as to why I have a problem with having to ask for permission before rubbing her back, stroking her neck, or giving her a peck.

So how long?
Legally, one year.  Realistically, I think the marriage was over the moment she announced that her husband could not touch her without asking permission.  If that's the case, then the marriage obviously does not exist because the husband has no more marital rights than anyone else on the planet.  A woman like this has issues that have nothing to do with her husband; whatever is going on inside her head may not be her fault, but the reality is that she is no more mentally fit to be married than a woman with an IQ of 30.

Any woman who is genuinely frightened of a man who has never so much as lifted his voice is psychologically screwed up in ways that the average man cannot possibly understand, let alone fix.  And any woman who carries on her play-acting to this extent when she isn't genuinely frightened is a psychopath of whom the average man should be more than a little frightened himself.  She's the sort who will kill her husband in his sleep and claim self-defense.

87 comments:

Nate said...

She's not afraid of him. if she was, she'd be fucking his brains out.

swiftfoxmark2 said...

She's not afraid of him. if she was, she'd be fucking his brains out.

Do tell...

krauserpua.com said...

The best way to fix a broken relationship is to dump the girl and get a new one.

It's not always feasible (e.g. legal, kids, no game) but it should be the default.

Crowhill said...

I see a possible resolution here.

>Her main complaints are that I am a poor
>listener ...

So from now on, whenever she speaks -- and I mean every single time she speaks -- say, "I hear you. Wanna have sex?"

yttik said...

Vox, this is the one issue I disagree with you about, so much that you force me out of the closet, out from behind my usual anonymous posts.

If men are going to lead, than they have to take responsibility. This constant injured air, this attitude of being victimized by the asexual wife, is not leadership, it's victimization, even learned helplessness.

It also sums up everything that is wrong between men and women and eventually the world at large. Many men want to lead and yet they don't want the responsibility, the work, only the rewards. The responsibility, the blame, is handed off to the wife. Given these conditions, is it any wonder so many women are reluctant to follow?

Trust said...

@ Nate said... She's not afraid of him.
_________

I thought that too. Women which don't say that to men they are afraid off.

mindstar3000 said...

Well a virgin at 34 likely has had intimacy issues for a long time. No surprise the sex tapered off or that now she has cut you off. Those men who put a premium on marrying a virgin are often very dissapointed with their choice after a year or so. Especially the older the woman In most states you could bring an action for divorce based on constructive abandonment after a year of no sex. If you are going to continue to try to save your marriage I'd suggest getting a new counselor since your current one is clueless.

Shimshon said...

What Vox says is true. Some women are "psychologically screwed up in ways that the average man cannot possibly understand". I can say this from very personal experience. It only took me 20 years to see it clearly. It helps to look at a woman like this as if she's a 3 year old in an adult body. That's the emotional maturity level you're dealing with. She is not capable of changing or improving. Or such change (in a woman) is so unheard of, it may as well be impossible. And, murder, while not common, is entirely possible for such a person.

Nate said...

"Do tell..."

Women are attracted to mean they are afraid of. That's observable reality.

yttik said...

Really Shimshon? So are you and Vox claiming that men can be easily outsmarted by a woman with the mentality of A 3 YEAR OLD?

And yes, may the Lord protect you from the dangers of homicidal 3 yr olds.

Okay, I give. There really is no hope for the human race.

tz said...

A woman like this has issues that have nothing to do with her husband; whatever is going on inside her head may not be her fault, but the reality is that she is no more mentally fit to be married than a woman with an IQ of 30.

If the man was even the slightest bit bad - even watching too much sports in his mancave or the local sports bar - the entire femochurch would be insisting he get counseling, help, etc.

Dump the "Christian" counselor - find someone who believes in the marriage you want, but read below.

She is breaking her vows (the marriage is an exchange of persons and that includes their bodies).

What if the man were to change the bank account and demand she ask for permission to spend even a dime? That she had to go to him each time and ask, and he never approved more than $5 but would "go to the store and get it himself or order it on line when I have time".
Not being physically or verbally abusive does not show you are respecting her - you don't do such to strangers you don't know or respect either.

If sex is the only time you assert dominance she isn't going to be attracted. Gamma until bedtime then alpha up for a few minutes will fail. And rightly so

I've noted, it might be her. But you may have shown her the greatest disrespect possible to show to another person, much less a spouse - Is she your wife or a depersonalized object when you want sex?

I've already bloviated often on how contraception changes the rules - if you want safe sex for pleasure, so why not just go back to porn? Can you find biblical injunctions against pornography or masturbation any more than against polygamy? (I can give the Catholic view, but I think most know it and prefer biblical ambiguity).

Is your wife is merely your personal porn star, fetish, vibrator? If that is how you were treating sex with her, - treating her as an object, not a person - what are you asserting again? That you have a right to come together in mutual respect and love without barriers and fully giving yourselves totally to each other, or that you have a right to masturbate using her body? What has your sex been expressing before? Giving or taking? Is giving yourselves a child part of it?

Why should the greatest expression of love and the most pleasurable act for both man and woman turn into something she abhors? Again, she might be another "psycho bitch from hell", so you need a mental health professional, and/or a veterinarian, and/or an exorcist.

But if every time you've had sex, it was one of objectifying her, you've created an anti-fetish. She may merely abhor the thought of you touching her only in order to use her just like you might pick up a massage device.

Well this is Catholic, and from Pope John Paul II's theology of the body, but I think it is wisdom. Persons are subjects, not objects. You can use objects, but it is evil to use persons.

The wife can use the husband (e.g. for income), so it works both ways.

But all the talk of dominance and submission, sacrifice, assertions and the rest are in the context of person to person with the respect for the dignity of the person, not person to object whether to ignore the humanity and dignity, or because they want to use the person.

Wives are to obey their husbands, but husbands are to LOVE their wives. Paul is not using the word eros. Treating your wife as an object even for a moment breaks this.

You can try to have a marriage, including a "Christian" marriage (with the grace of the sacrament), but if it is two persons using each other, or even one using the other, it cannot be mutual self-giving. And will be destined to fail, though the culture can be such that the couple will stay together, it will be a zombie marriage - where all love is dead, and only utility is left.

Shimshon said...

@yttik - I never said outsmarted. Such a woman can be intelligent (as my wife is), but once I started looking at her as I would a three year old, her actions and behavior, which until then seemed irrational, became downright predictable. I can predict with great reliability how she will react to almost any interaction I have with her. Until this realization, I did think was capable of outsmarting me though.

My wife also has a similar "no touching" attitude. It is not explicitly stated, but she can be vicious when the recipient of unwanted touching.

She is also afraid of me. Even though she is taller than me (not just taller, she has a very large frame), heavier than me, and quite strong (she works as a gardener professionally, a very physical job). I have never hit her. I can't remember the last time I screamed at her. And she physically attacked me three times (the last time over a year ago, but still). She really believes each time was self-defense, even though I am not a threat to her in any way.

I'm ready to get out myself. I suggest FE get out now, instead of waiting in vain for things to improve.

Revo Luzione said...

The fact that she was a 34 year old virgin was probably your first red flag. Hate to say it, but it's true.

And dame that waits that long past her peak sexual years to be sexual is damaged goods. Her body doesn't even know what it feels like to be sexual at the peak, or even in the fat part of the curve, of her most prime sexual years.

Second red flag is, as V said, the claimed fear thing. I'd next her so fast she'd think she was in a time warp.
It would be like a guy starting bodybuilding at age 70, and wondering why he's making slow progress.

Bike Bubba said...

My take here is that if the story is true--and let's be honest, this is only one side--the counselor needs to dig into why the woman requires consent for a touch, not to defend that rule. If the counselor will not, then they need a different counselor.

yttik said...

Shimshon, I apologize for addressing you personally. There is one thing that makes me a little nuts and that is men claiming victim hood when they should be claiming authority.

Also, on a blog so focused on the game, on winning, there is such an incredible amount of, "give it up, you lost," that I want to scream.

As to your wife being afraid of you, I agree with the comments above. No, she's not. Most likely she's afraid of herself, terrified even, but she is not afraid of YOU. Women never attack men they are genuinely afraid of. That would be psychotic. Contrary to popular opinion, most women are not psychotic.

Shimshon said...

yttik, there are women who are so damaged they are incapable of having a relationship. Also, Game doesn't work on such a woman. Well, if I was psychotic myself, I'm pretty sure it would work. That's the level of Alpha she needs in order to be dominated. But I'm not, and not interested in either. I'm (finally) ready to move on and start over with a healthy woman (who can and does respond to Game).

Also, such a woman is perfectly capable of being afraid. She's got the emotional maturity of a three year old. Such a fear is real, even if (to you and me) totally irrational. Even normal women have fears that seem ridiculous to most men. Even when they're aware of them, they have to fight very hard to overcome them. Vox has pointed this out.

Booch Paradise said...

@yttik

Matthew 10:14
"And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet." In this verse is Jesus instructing his disciples to be quitters or losers?

Contra your view, ending a relationship is in no way surrendering authority or responsibility. In many cases it is the only reasonable way to reclaim them. Would you say any CEO who gives up on a product is in general giving up because he lost? Of course not. A good CEO will recognize a bad venture early on and cut his losses and move onto better things. To double down in an attempt to validate bad decisions of the past is not responsible, and certainly not good leadership.

Unknown said...

TZ has good points I always wonder about. At the top of a man's list is in a marriage is sex. She obviously still wants the marriage for non-sexual reasons. When she withholds sex, do these men continue to perform all those duties most valued by her? Not to be passive-aggressive about it, but I certainly don't want to continue to go out to dinner, the movies, and spend my weekends with a wife who wants all the benefits but just ain't into me. I am certain I can make happy hours with work forks extend a little late on Friday, I can spend half of Saturday at the gym, and the other doing manwork around the house, and
church on Sunday can be a daylong thing, all without her charming company. Cancelling her credit cards and allowance hence making her ask for money every time seems like an equivalent tradeoff to him having to ask for sex. Serious issues require tough love.

Vox said...

If men are going to lead, than they have to take responsibility. This constant injured air, this attitude of being victimized by the asexual wife, is not leadership, it's victimization, even learned helplessness.

Who is claiming victimhood, learned helplessness, or irresponsibility. Some people will not follow. Some people cannot be led. If a woman will not accept her husband's leadership, that is not necessarily his fault.

It may be. But it also may not be. I know one of the smartest, most charismatic leaders of the previous generation of military officers. Men who served under him have declared that they would happily follow him into Hell. And yet, even he could not always get others to follow his leadership.

Vox said...

Also, on a blog so focused on the game, on winning, there is such an incredible amount of, "give it up, you lost," that I want to scream.

Why? Do you stand on the field after the game is over, shouting at your teammates and calling them quitters because they headed for the showers?

Relationships have time limits. Even from the Christian perspective, the longest the marriage relationship will last is perhaps 60 years. And many don't last that long, one way or another.

Trust said...

@ Vox said...
Who is claiming victimhood, learned helplessness, or irresponsibility. Some people will not follow. Some people cannot be led. If a woman will not accept her husband's leadership, that is not necessarily his fault.
________

Bingo. When the rules of the game change, the players often change their behaviors. Nice girlfriend who become wives are often like good professors who reach tenure. Guarantees independent of performance is the parent of complacency.

swiftfoxmark2 said...

I would try an ultimatum approach first. Obviously, the marriage is pretty much done, but that doesn't mean it can't be jump-started. Asserting your right as a husband and telling her that unless you have sex within the next few months, might shock her into submission.

If not, then you know it is over and done. And she'll know why you filed for divorce. Well, at least you will have told her flat out why you are getting and divorce. She may not understand it as you're dividing up your assets.

Be willing to walk out with just a suitcase of clothes though and know that you'll probably not get anything. If she is crazy, I doubt you'll get a fair shake in the court proceedings.

matamoros said...

"What if the man were to change the bank account and demand she ask for permission to spend even a dime? "

Well, changing the bank account is definitely a step in the right direction; and can keep her from doing it first.

"But if every time you've had sex, it was one of objectifying her, you've created an anti-fetish. She may merely abhor the thought of you touching her only in order to use her just like you might pick up a massage device.

Well this is Catholic, and from Pope John Paul II's theology of the body,"


Remember John Paul II was from Communist Poland. This "objectification" is pure marxist b.s.

Rather than read that, read some real Catholic theology on marriage such as castus conubii; and the fact that the woman owes sex due to her marriage vow. Any thing less is annulable.

In fact it sounds like her use of sex was to sucker him into signing on the dotted line, with no intent to be a real wife.

WendyRaf said...

Hard question, except for the counselor. Get a new counselor to start with.

I'm guessing she doesn't want children?

Bike Bubba said...

Vox, the time limit for a Christian marriage is, as you might remember from your own vows, "till death do us part", no? And so for the believer, it ain't over till it's over. You play to the 9th inning, even if you're 10 down, no?

Plus, if we believe God's words to Noah, some who marry young could conceiveably make it to 100 years in marriage. Age limit is 120.

In this case, if the writer is describing things honestly, the counselor needs to go, as he's missing all kinds of red flags that really ought to be dug into. And, quite frankly, that counselor/pastor ought to, if they're members of a church, to go before the board of deacons/elders with the claims and start to administer church discipline if the woman is not brought to repentance by the work of the pastor/counselor.

MycroftJones said...

Till death do us part may be a "Christian" marriage, but it isn't a Biblical marriage. In the Bible, marriage is "Until someone breaks the contract and we divorce, or someone gets stoned to death". Joseph, step-father of Jesus, was called a righteous man because he intended to divorce Mary. Divorce is righteous, divorce is good.

yttik said...

"Some people will not follow. Some people cannot be led. If a woman will not accept her husband's leadership, that is not necessarily his fault."

Actually, yes it is his fault, at least by 50%. He's half the equation. You seem to always believe, well that's just how some women are, so throw her out and get a new one and all will be well.

Trust said...

@ yttik said... "Actually, yes it is his fault, at least by 50%."
_________

You probably didn't intend to, but you just basically said that it is impossible for the women to be less at fault, whereas a man is "at least" 50% to blame meaning he could be more at fault.

First, that is nonsense. Second either party can be more at fault than the other. We've preached and even legislated this falsehood that women are more innocent with disasterous results.

yttik said...

Trust, men can't have it both ways anymore then so called feminists can. If a man is going to be a leader, then by nature he's going to have more responsibility then one who follows, right?

But seriously, I don't care about blame, fault, whatever. I'd settle for hearing someone take a tiny bit of personal responsibility. Again, you can't have it both ways. The alternative to taking responsibility for your marriage is victim hood. That is the message I read here, over and over again, men are simply helpless victims of bad women.

Conscientia Republicae said...

Yttik is right! We men need to man up!

Trust said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Trust said...

It is not I who wants it both ways. Men and women alike can be at fault and need to take responsibility. How often do you hear a female equivalent of man up?

Women today demand a femicentric hypergamous society with visceral disdain for all things masculine, while also demanding men behave as though they are living in a traditional monogamous society... but only in the aspects that benefits women.

I don't see anything in the manophere to match the extent to which.women want it both.ways.

Vox said...

Actually, yes it is his fault, at least by 50%. He's half the equation.

That's ridiculous. If he is providing leadership and the woman is refusing to follow, it cannot be his fault.

yttik said...

Trust, while you're busy complaining about women, keep in mind that he who takes the most responsibility, has the most power.

A couple of men have written in complaining about sexless marriages. They have 3 options,
1. dump her as Vox appears to advocate,
2. blame her and continue to whine about how helpless they are,
3. take responsibility for the situation and start leading her in another direction.

I advocate for number three because it is the most powerful position to take and promises the best result.

Vox said...

I'd settle for hearing someone take a tiny bit of personal responsibility.

No, you wouldn't. You're simply looking for a way to put blame on men when none can reasonably be applied.

No one has said men who don't provide leadership are not responsible. I have pointed out that a leader cannot lead someone who will not follow no matter what he does.

Conscientia Republicae said...

Man up! It's your fault!

Trust said...

Fair enough. Like I said, responsibility needs to be taken. Men and women alike. I dont see many of your kind scolding the complainers over at jezabel or feministing.

Btw, I am observing and commenting. I am not complaining, at least not any more than you are.

Let me know what the female oriented bloggers say when you set then straight. Wait....

yttik said...

"That's ridiculous. If he is providing leadership and the woman is refusing to follow, it cannot be his fault."

Are you suggesting that by simple default and no actions of their own, men should simply be declared the leader? Honestly Vox, now I'm laughing.

Both of the men who have written in have NOT provided any leadership in their marriages. They're looking to you for guidance. (Well, one is looking at a woman from church for some leadership but that's a whole other story.)

Conscientia Republicae said...

Trust,

Try commenting at one of the sites, and see where to get you. Odds are, your comment will be deleted before anybody can see it. The great thing about Alpha Game is that your comments will be displayed no matter how stupid or an educated they are.

Vox said...

I advocate for number three because it is the most powerful position to take and promises the best result.

Two questions. 1. For how long? 2. And if it does not work?

yttik said...

"You're simply looking for a way to put blame on men when none can reasonably be applied."

No, not true. But keep in mind that when you blame a woman you're handing her your power. It's the same as saying I have no control and authority over this situation because someone else holds all the cards. Men are of course, free to blame women all they want, I just don't think it's an effective way of taking charge of your life.

Weouro said...

Disgusting.

There must be a way to determine if a woman will be enthusiastic about sex, before you marry her.

The Social Pathologist said...

Not enough information here to make a judgement.

What's his BMI? How confident is he? Does he have a personality? What does he do when she barks the orders? How does he dress? Is he gaming his wife?

Some red flags though:

Another (recent) reader seeking your opinion

How new to the red pill is this guy?

Our Christian counselor

What's he done to improve things himself?

We need more info before we can make a determination.

Vox said...

Are you suggesting that by simple default and no actions of their own, men should simply be declared the leader? Honestly Vox, now I'm laughing.

You're laughing because you're a moron. "To lead" is an action. It is a verb. Are you simply being obtuse or are you really as stupid as you're indicating here?

You don't seem to grasp the very simple fact that a man can lead the way and a woman, or anyone else for that matter, can simply refuse to follow. If you still can't understand this difficult concept, the next time you find yourself in the passenger seat, don't get out of the car when it stops, but sit there and wait and see how long it takes until you are magically drawn after the driver when he gets out of the car.

Ospurt said...

I advocate for number three because it is the most powerful position to take and promises the best result.

Two questions. 1. For how long? 2. And if it does not work?


I tried this.

From the time I got myself together and made the firm demands I gave her three months.

It worked and it did not work.

During this time my ex found me more attractive, but her hamster wanted the old me back (borderline personality disorder problems). I made her hamster implode and then I filed for divorce.

The reson someone would say you get better results is because stay or go, if you do this from a position of strenght (Red Pill) the man is better off no matter what the outcome.

罗臻 said...

yttk,

You are applying the general to an individual case. There is a continuum of fault in relationships and there are marriages where the husband is 100% at fault, wife 0%, all the way to husband 0% at fault, wife 100%.

yttik said...

"You don't seem to grasp the very simple fact that a man can lead the way and a woman, or anyone else for that matter, can simply refuse to follow."

You don't seem to grasp the simple fact that one should at least TRY to lead before one complains about not being followed.

"..the next time you find yourself in the passenger seat, don't get out of the car when it stops, but sit there and wait and see how long it takes until you are magically drawn after the driver when he gets out of the car."

With proper leadership, the vast majority of women really will be magically drawn to get of the car, Vox. Why do you insist on declaring men to be so powerless?

Trust said...

@ Conscientia Republicae said...
Try commenting at one of the sites, and see where to get you. Odds are, your comment will be deleted before anybody can see it. The great thing about Alpha Game is that your comments will be displayed no matter how stupid or an educated they are.
_________

Precisely my point.

rycamor said...

yttik said...

"You don't seem to grasp the very simple fact that a man can lead the way and a woman, or anyone else for that matter, can simply refuse to follow."

You don't seem to grasp the simple fact that one should at least TRY to lead before one complains about not being followed.


You're assuming that these men have not tried. You have no evidence of that. Just the fact that they have read Alpha Game would indicate that they have come across the many posts and discussions here about male leadership. Why don't you take a moment to ASK these guys how they have tried to lead their wives?

Vox said...

You don't seem to grasp the simple fact that one should at least TRY to lead before one complains about not being followed.

No, you babbling moron, I am referring solely to the men who are actively trying to lead. I clearly distinguished between those who are providing leadership and those who are not. You're simply ignoring what I, and others, have written and arguing against a nonexistent position that no one has taken.

With proper leadership, the vast majority of women really will be magically drawn to get of the car, Vox. Why do you insist on declaring men to be so powerless?

You are, quite literally, engaged in magical thinking. Because men are observably that powerless. No man has the ability to lead a woman who simply refuses to follow. Hence the Biblical call for women to be submissive.

The CronoLink said...

yttik, stop moving the goalposts

Ospurt said...

Women will not follow if they do not want to. Sometimes this is because their hamster won't let them. In my ex's case she could not own up to the terrible things she did, so she had to blame the dissolution of the marriage on actions I took. When I say terrible, I mean she got arrested for what she did, and I led her through it and kept her out of jail, and she loved and resented me at the same time.

Her hamster kept telling her she was a good person, and caring, and loving and supportive and there was no need for me to force her to do the things that kept her out of jail.

Keeping that level of control (for her own good) will send you to an early grave, so at the end I had to work on myself. At that point all that was left was dread game.

Didn't matter that facing her actions would have helped her heal psychologically, I could not force or otherwise convince her to do it. She just kept hating and loving me at the same time.

Sometimes leadership is cutting the anchor and getting your ship of life out if the fog and back on course.

Ospurt said...

@yttik. It is apparent you have little leadership, relational or experience with psychological problems. Women can be very cunning, but make decisions using emotions no more developed than a 3 year old. What's worse is they will use their smarts to achieve a goal worthy of a tantrum filled toddler.

Mano y Mano with crazy is a learned skill. It is a world where leadership looks like manipulation. It is a world where refusing to lead may be the best choice for everyone.

Even if you gain power, excreting this type of leadership on the unwilling or rebellious is often a zero sum game. So like I said, sometimes the best answer is to cut your losses and not even attempt to lead.

That my friend is called wisdom.

Shimshon said...

yttik, I can only speak for myself, but where I accept the blame is 1) choosing the wrong woman (the signs were all there from the start, and I willfully ignored them), 2) abdicating my leadership and responsibility for years and years. For #2, my wife was right to point the blame at me.

The thing is, when I finally stepped up to the plate, and started the process of taking on the leadership and responsibility that I was ready to, and that she even demanded, she (as Vox has said in so many different ways and that you refuse to accept) simply has refused to follow. Not only that, in refusing to follow me, as I have also pointed out, she attacked me THREE times (this doesn't even include my property that she has destroyed or held hostage). Am I to blame for that? Technically, you don't know, because all you know is that fact, and none of the details. But from my perspective, she is incapable (or unwilling) of being led by me, or probably any normal man, no matter how good their game is.

Shimshon said...

Ospurt, your wife sounds like mine. I believe she also has BPD, based on what I've read. I've experienced the push-pull dynamic you describe too. It's the story of our marriage.

She fully acknowledges that I was sleepwalking through life (those are her words, and she didn't mean it charitably) until I told her I wanted a divorce the first time nearly three years ago. Yet more than once recently, she has pined for the old, passive, sleepwalking me, because I was so much more compliant and agreeable. This, even though she unquestionably finds me more attractive today than ever. I've lost nearly 50 pounds, increased my income several times, am more decisive, take care of things, and am even a better and more involved father to our three sons (two of whom told me on their own initiative that they prefer to be with me in the event of divorce).

She also acts in a very cunning manner. I used to think she could outsmart me, because she is actually quite intelligent, and extremely clever. But I finally realized she assumes I'm a chump (like a 3yo would) and her manipulations are totally open and transparent to me now. So much so, I can predict with astonishing success her reaction to almost anything I say or do.

I've finally come to the point where I am ready to end it myself.

I'm also a better man now, even with the end of my marriage in sight. Too bad she's not going to be the woman to enjoy the vastly improved me.

yttik said...

No Vox, I am not a babbling moron. I am however, trying to understand your numerous conflicting and contradictory points. Perhaps that is a moronic task? Regardless, I do not understand things like how you can claim to have Christian beliefs and yet spend so much time advocating for divorce, recently polygamy, and adultery?

My point about men and leadership is that they are far more powerful then they know, than they realize, then they accept. I was laughing yesterday because so many men, including yourself, seem determined to prove me wrong. Again you just said, "Because men are observably that powerless." Wouldn't life be better for everyone is men stopped doing this to themselves? Stop competing for victim hood? Stopped obsessing over their alleged helplessness?

Shimshon said...

Yttik, in my case, I'm only a victim if I stay married to a woman who hasn't changed at all after three years of effort at reconciliation and continue to complain about it.

Vox said...

No Vox, I am not a babbling moron.

Read what you wrote. You most certainly are. And I'm not determined to prove you wrong as there is no need to prove what is already apparent to everyone.

I shall even prove that by simply ignoring your comments in the future.

yttik said...

Shimshon, stay or leave, I assume you'll make the best choice based on your circumstances.

However, you talked about passively sleepwalking through, which of course is why men should learn to claim their own power because if YOU don't change, what's to stop you from passively sleepwalking through the next relationship?

Also, both men and women often do this in marriage, passively wait for the other person to change. Needless to say, that's a fool's errand. You have to change yourself because that's the only thing you can completely control. Often that's enough to trigger change in the other person, but not always. Whether the other person changes or not is actually irrelevant, because it's the change in you that you will either live with in marriage or take to a new relationship.

yttik said...

"I shall even prove that by simply ignoring your comments in the future."

By all means, Vox. That's what I also do when somebody is making a point I'm having a hard time grasping.

But I rarely call people babbling morons because you know, if they really are, why kick a dead horse? And if they aren't, all I've done is shown that I haven't got a rational argument to make.

newrebeluniv said...

I don't know how many truly sexless marriages there are, but I suspect fewer than are reported. Just because you aren't having sex with your wife doesn't mean you aren't having sex.

Trust said...

@ newrebeluniv

Did you really just day that if there is affair sex the marriage isn't sexless?

If the husband and wife aren't having sex the marriage is sexless regardless of any extramarital dalliances.

newrebeluniv said...

tomayto -- tomahto. I clearly understand the point of the post.

JCclimber said...

Yttik has a serious reading problem.
I finally figured it out after reading the response to Shimson.

Yttik reads the first sentence, and gets an emotional reaction to that sentence, and ignores or filters every subsequent sentence through that self-constructed filter, and sees only that which aligns with the initial assumption.

I think my ex-wife is posting here!

Ospurt said...

@yttik. Blaming things on sleepwalking is weak and not very rigorous. Again, it doesn't seem like you have navigates a modern difficult relationship. Relationships should not require hyper-vigilant game to sustain them. I slept walked through nearly 5 years of my marriage because I was emotionally blown out from the terrible thing my ex did. Basically I was shellshocked.

Generally, when the conversation goes in this direction we are dealing with a psychosis that is deeper than the female norm, so game and leadership in its natural sense do not work. If you think normal women breakdown and render men powerless....you have no idea about women with BPD.

You are coming off as a moron because you are ignorant of the nuance of he situation.

The reason this is salient is because a greater percentage of the female population is exhibiting these psychological traits.

Stickwick Stapers said...

There must be a way to determine if a woman will be enthusiastic about sex, before you marry her.

Yes, there is, but it's still a calculated risk, unless you're both willing to fornicate to find out. Most women -- even chaste women -- who are into sex and into you will not be able to resist showing it in some manner. If a woman is enthusiastic about touch (both giving and receiving), kissing, and other displays of affection, etc., she'll likely be enthusiastic about sex. If she enjoys holding your hand, touching your arm and chest muscles, cuddling when she's sitting next to you, sitting in your lap, and leaning into you when you pull her close and commenting on how good you smell, she'll likely be enthusiastic about sex. If you put all that together with a demonstrated willingness to follow your lead and indications that your wants and needs are important to her, you probably have nothing to worry about.

People often get stuck in cold marriages because they marry too quickly without taking the time to establish these things or they ignore red flags, thinking marriage will fix them all. (One of my friends, who's currently in a nightmare marriage with a rebellious woman, falls into the latter category.) Also, some men seem especially drawn to "project women" and think they can methodically fix them the way they would a car. It rarely works. Marriage isn't for fixing people; your spouse should be ready to drive off the lot in good working order.

Res Ipsa said...

Stickwick,

That last comment of yours was one of the best bits of advice, for young single Christian men, I've read. You should develop a post around it and save it for prosperity.

newrebeluniv said...

Amen.

Stickwick Stapers said...

Thanks, Res. Not sure I could flesh that out into a bigger post, but it might be worth a try.

There are probably exceptions to this, but, personally, I think kissing is the best indicator of a woman's feelings about sex and a particular man. A woman can disengage from other forms of physicality* -- even intercourse -- but it's impossible for her to disengage during a real, romantic kiss. (This is why most prostitutes won't do it.) It's too hard to fake enthusiasm for it, thus when a woman is turned off to sex in general or to a man in particular, she will go out of her way to avoid kissing.

[* If she initiates or reciprocates, she's not disengaged. If she merely tolerates it, you may be in trouble.]

Res Ipsa said...

Stickwick,

I think it would be worth the effort. I'm sure you could get a page worth of material with no problem.

There are young men that want to do things God's way, wait for marriage, marry only once, be faithful etc. Those kids don't have a clue what the modern female is like. I think hearing about it from a female would be a benefit.

rycamor said...

Stickwick speaks wisdom. It absolutely infuriates me to hear some modern Christian leaders preach the "total abstinence" or hypervirginity doctrine, counseling young Christians to avoid even so much as a hug or kiss until married. I would call this the pedestalization of marriage itself. Holding marriage up to this absolute towering height of abstract perfection couldn't possibly be setting young people up for failure, could it...?

Re: kissing... science has now shown us that kissing involves a chemical exchange where each person can sense not only health and fertility but actual genetic compatibility. If you are finding after several make-out sessions that the kisses don't seem quite right, that could actually be your body giving you signals. Happened to me in one relationship... it started to feel like I was kissing my sister. I had to end it.

And a counterpoint to this is that this is that sexual withdrawal is not always on the female side. It may not be quite as troublesome for most women to be left high and dry (they seem to handle it better) but it is still downright unfair for a man to marry a woman he isn't attracted enough to to get a decent erection. Let's just be honest about this.

Stickwick Stapers said...

All righty, Res, I'll see what I can come up with.

Shimshon said...

Stickwick, where's your blog? I'd like to see what you come up with.

xandohsa said...

I'm in a fairly sexless marriage. Didn't used to be, in fact it was quite active. We got old, though. I relate to Al Bundy in "Married With Children" these days, though, which is a place that seemed so fictional, so remote from possibility to my younger self. Sexual maintenance of my wife has become, frankly, a dire chore! This was all quite unexpected.

I still perform the best I can when called upon, though. Sucks for me, but not for my wife. No chance anything from me is "premature" these days. I'm down for the count. It's a pure duty for me. But I do it, because that's my job as husband. Pure and simple. It's really not complicated. Sure, maybe sometimes when the request comes in the timing isn't right, nevertheless notice has been served so the problem becomes finding the right time. Then you do it because such is your duty as a spouse.

I love my wife and want to oblige her needs. Her needs are natural in this regard, and very much not irrational. When the shoe's on the other foot in other marriages and it's the wife whose libido has plunged, the same mechanics should apply. Reasonable needs need attention.

I don't know what happened to me. I suspect my testosterone levels have crashed due to age or whatever. I simply have no interest in sex anymore. This is an amazing development given my younger self, to whom pursuit of sexual relations was practically a full time occupation. It was what my job funded.

It blows me away that I might have misspent my entire youth on something that holds no luster to me anymore. To think that mere hormones are responsible for so much mischief boggles the mind. I did manage to get a good wife and good children out of the whole ordeal. Can't complain.

Yet, in view of what hormone changes have meant in my life, FE might be advised to try getting his wife to a doctor who can check out such things. Maybe. It is not a good sign that she requires permission to be touched. But perhaps something else is going on with her body, too.

rycamor said...

xandohsa, if you don't mind my asking, how old are you? Have you tried any of the non-medical testosterone increasing methods such as weightlifting, eating more fats and proteins and less carbs and sugars?

Jeremy said...

Why should any married man give up porn if they're driven to it?

Go with me here...
Sex in a marriage is a duty. I don't care what any feminist says, it's a duty you have to your husband to provide that for him when he needs it. Obviously there are limits, but 99.9999% of mentally healthy women can provide it 3+ times a week with no complaints, and frankly should if they're married.

Now, if she is shirking this duty, how is this any different from you not mowing the lawn for weeks, months, years on end? If she hires a gardener due to your inability to handle the responsibility, can you really complain about it? Sure, you can get mad that we're now paying for a service which we could be doing ourselves, but you as a man were not doing your duties of physical labor around the house so she outsourced you. There's no problem there.

Porn is like outsourcing duties which someone in the marriage is unwilling to provide. Women have a huge problem with porn, because it supplants them in the marriage, it makes the withdrawal of physical contact a non-weapon. Well, frankly, TOO EFFING BAD. If you, as a woman/wife, don't want to be outsourced to the internet, do your duty and keep your man happy in this regard.

Brad Andrews said...

> it cannot be his fault.

I seriously doubt that. The only sinless one is not on the Earth right now.

He may not be the primary or even significant cause, but he certainly has not been perfect any more than anyone is perfect.

That does not negate the fault on the other end, but it does place the entire picture in better perspective.

Brad Andrews said...

Rycamor,

The problem with that kind of action is where it leads. You start down the path, you are almost certain to end at the destination, especially in today's society. The flaw lies not in the abstinence from such behavior, but in the waiting so long to be married.

Igniting passions, which is what a "make out session" will certainly do, is not very consistent with the idea that a man should marry rather than burn.

Perhaps you are one of the special snowflakes that can start making out and just stop there, but most are not like that.

Brad Andrews said...

> It blows me away that I might have misspent my entire youth on something that holds no luster to me anymore.

This is probably the cause of more marital dysfunction today than anything else. We use sex outside marriage so much, that it has lost its moorings inside marriage. That can be true even if we seemed chaste, but merely lived in our hyper-sexualized world.

I couldn't prove it, but I would bet that most of the sexual problems in marriage have this exact cause.

What a mess.

rycamor said...

Yeah, Brad. I grew up in an *extremely* conservative Christian background. I can tell you quite confidently that the neo-puritanical approach does not automatically produce wonderful marriages either. We have no promise, we have *no exact blueprint* as much as so many modern Western Christians would like to craft one. I'm sorry but no one can tell another one exactly what line must be drawn to prevent premature ignition of the passions or whatever. The whole thing is quite messy. Deal with it.

In fact, as I recall the actual Puritans *expected* such premature ignition of the passions and simply chose ahead of time who were allowed to spend time together, and dealt with the results by marrying the two youngsters if things ended up that way. That's a lot more Biblical than the modern Churchian practice of sending your daughter off to college and somehow expecting a miracle.

This idea that marriage can be some ethereal abstraction where passion is completely absent or at least flames un-fanned until that magical moment is seriously ridiculous. I suppose the only truly holy way to get married is to choose some sort of remote exchange of emails where you never even see a picture of the other person and the contents of the messages are carefully monitored to make sure nothing salacious ever gets communicated, and the marriage choice is made purely on "spiritual compatibility". Gotta watch out for those passions!

If you haven't figured out, by this time in my life I am sick and tired of slippery slope arguments. You can make a slippery slope out of anything!

xandohsa said...

rycamor, I'm 47. No, I haven't attempted boosting my testosterone levels. I don't want to, frankly. Why would anyone seek to be in the thrall of a hormone? I consider my loss of libido to be a gift. It is as if a weight has lifted off my shoulders. My happiness is no longer incumbent upon another. My condition is an eye opener, too. It is amazing to see what people to themselves and to each other in name of ... what? Love? or craving - the tortuous mirage fueled by a mere chemical?

cailcorishev said...

If a woman is in her 30s, not absolutely hideous, and still a virgin, be very suspicious. Now, if you question her about it and it seems very clear that she stayed chaste because of strong religious beliefs, and that it wasn't easy for her, she may be okay, but look hard for red flags. I know there are some women out there like that who stayed virgins for the right reasons, and they shouldn't be punished for being unusual. But a decent-looking woman who's a virgin at 34 is far more likely to have some serious issues that kept her from ever giving in to temptation -- or doing it the right way through marriage -- for all those years. Her acceptance of your proposal is no proof that those issues are resolved; it's more likely to mean she's tired of being lonely and killing her own spiders and is looking for a male roommate.

rycamor said...

@xandohsa,

Sure, if you're fine with it. I guess I got the impression your weren't from your post above. On the other hand, you might want to consider your wife and your health. A quick drop in libido at a relatively young age like that is often a sign of trouble. I would at least check it out.

ICG said...

I

ICG said...

Oops. I couldn't relate at all to the previous post, but this one (a wife not even wanting to be touched, struggles with porn, etc.) hit home. I'm afraid this is more common that most people think.

toffeehammer said...

The alpha move here would be divorce.

Ex-wives are notorious for trying to jump into bed.

Pussy-ManiaGirls: http://goo.gl/w9Oepq said...

watching my collection, we have upload more video at here:

Collection Part 1:

Doggy Style and In Missionary Position

Hot Sex Anal With Amazing Girl Friend

Sex Under Hot Lights Bad Girls

Give Me The Cum

Cum In My Panties

Nude Amateur Teen Girls

Sexy Brunette Girls

Young Kinky Sluts

Busty Tattoo Chick On Car

Young Asian fucked anal

Latina Havana Ginger gets

Teen Threesome Porn

Hot Blowjob

Amateur Pulls Down Tanga

Sweet girl amazing hot

Sexy japanese babes getting their tight

TEEN BLONDE ANAL SEX ORGY




Collection Part 2:


Hot asian blowjob and pussy creampie

Sucking dick, Audrey put vegetables in all holes

Blonde love fuck

Naomi Russell And Her Royal Ass

Sexy blonde gives blowjob in the car

ASIAN XXX PORN VIDEO

JAPANESE XXX PORN VIDEO

ARABIC XXX PORN VIDEO

HARDCORE PORN VIDEO

GAY XXX PORN VIDEO

WATCH STREAMING PORN VIDEO

USA CELEBS XXX PORN

LATINA XXX PORN

LESBIAN XXX PORN

Hardcore Porn Celebrity

HOT TURKEY PORN MOVIE

INDIAN NUDES CELEBRITIES VIDEOS

UZBEKS Fuck PORN VIDEOS

HOT RASTA GIRL


100% MAKE you satisfy......








































Reply Delete

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.