Should you stop romancing your GF/Wife if she denies you of Intimacy?

[Hyperpen12000]

This question is for the males?

 

1) Should you deny your GF/Wife of romance if she’s not in the mood to have sex? Do you think romance and intimacy should be interdependent? “Romance me, and I’ll rewarded you with intimacy; you partake in intimacy and I’ll reward you with romance”. Do you think this is fair?

 

 

2) If you are denied but you still romance her, yet she denies you again, should you continue romancing?

 

 

 

Ladies you can answer too....

 

 

(Note: Not from personal experience; inspired by a group discussion)

[Mr. Lucky]

I came to the realization during my marital struggles that I could only control what I do. Even from only a selfish standpoint, participating in a cycle of denial (no sex so no intimacy, no intimacy so no sex) serves no purpose. It didn't get me what I wanted, simple as that. While I wouldn't be played as a marital fool forever, I decided not to be cast as an emotional non-participant for even a short time. Others may feel differently...

 

Mr. Lucky

[Krytellan]

This WAS my marriage. The thing about it is you need to know when enough is enough. And that is where you have to draw your own line. I was fed the line about needing romance in order to be sexual, so I did that. For 4 months, with no response. She kept saying it but it got old. So in my exclusive experience the "romance" thing was just a BS line to avoid having to confront the real issue.

 

In meeting her after the divorce, she came clean that she thought of me as her best friend and that superceded any sexual feelings. Therefore, it took her 2 years and a divorce to FINALLY admit to me that she just didn't want to have sex with me.

[JackJack]

I think if you stop the romancing because she stops the intimacy that is game playing. Two wrongs don't make a right, even though you may feel like it or want to do it.

 

I know some may say, well what about her lack of intimacy isn't that game playing? Not really, because the best thing to do first is to try to get to the bottom of WHY there is a lack of intimacy to begin with, not just automacitcally stop what you're doing because she did, without finding out WHY first.

 

The problem can be, that sometimes you may never really know WHY intimacy has stopped unless she point blank tells you or you work it out in counseling.

 

In Krytellan's case, it seems he did what was asked, and he romanced her, and still did not get attention or affection like he wanted. In that case its no one persons fault, its just something that did not work out. JMO.

[Tsuki no Michi]

IMO no. Women need to feel special in order to feel sexy (in most cases anyway, especially in a commited relationship). If you reciprocate her denial then the chances that she will ever want to be intimate decrease significantly. Obviously I don't know the circumstances of everyone's situation, but the point is if you love her, you will treat her like she's special, regardless if she is interested in physical intimacy. Sure, there is a point where your own needs need to be addressed and that's between you and her. If it's a real problem after a long period of time then perhaps you both need to see a counselor as to why she's not responding as you think you should. Perhaps it's that you aren't treating her special in the way she needs and you don't realize it. Not every woman needs to be wined and dined as a means of romance, in fact most I've talked to would rather the man did little things around the house to make them feel special. Stuff like doing the laundry one morning without being asked, ironing the clothes, cleaning around the house, etc. I heard a saying once that the sexiest thing in the world to a woman is the sight of a man cleaning, usually cleaning *their* home without being asked. In my experience this is most definitely true. So if what you are doing for romance isn't working, perhaps you need to reevaluate what it is that *she* considers romantic. It may not be what you think it is.

 

TNM

[katiebour]

My opinion:

 

Romance = Intentional expression of love

Sex = Sex

 

I don't think you stop feeling or expressing love because you do or don't get sex.

 

But I also think there need to be reasonable limits and caring on both sides; "I have a headache tonight honey" is a lot different than "I don't want to have sex now or 6 months from now." Sex is a need, and it's hard to be loving when your partner denies your needs. Your partner should care about your sexual needs and accommodate as often as possible.

 

If they feel no desire or sexual need, then some long, truthful discussions (as to why) need to happen, and marriage counseling or a physician's examination might be in order.

 

When a loving partner cares about the other's needs and is willing to make the effort to fulfill them, then you have a third equation:

 

Sex = Intentional expression of love

 

I agree with Mr. Lucky that playing the "tit-for-tat" game doesn't do anything except create distance in a relationship.

[Hyperpen12000]

Sex is an expression of love too. I can't count how many guys I know who've used romance as a leverage for sex. They were complete womanizers.

 

I think I speak for a lot of good men when I say, we desire to feel loved and wanted too-not just when we exercise something romantic. A guys romance is different from a womans. A lot of guys enjoy when their GF/Wive dress up in raunchy attire waiting at the front door or in the bedroom. That's romance to us.

 

I know the concept of not giving romance if she's not giving any intimacy seems like a game, but if you're putting your energy and affection into someone and not receiving any back, you become exhausted and apathetic.

[marriedwithtwo]

While I TOTALLY sypathize with your situation, here is an analogy:

 

 

 

 

If a flower is dying and want to bring it back to life, do you stop watering it?

 

 

 

 

 

Makes no sense. Instead you water the flower, and realize that you have to water it every day. You also realize that it would be great to have a multicolored beautiful smelling flower, but in reality what you do have at it's most healthy is a nice, pretty flower.

 

I know it's a gay analogy, but it helps me through the tough times when I need more from my wife.

[FrequentFlyer]

Stop playing games.

[Citizen Erased]

I know I may offend some but I believe that for a woman to deny their partner of a sexual relationship because they don't feel romanced is a cop out. Yes, in some cases the husband may be a complete *******, so all the power to you. But I know some women who use sex to get jewellery, clothes etc or just power in the relationship and I think that is unforgivable.

 

For a woman to say "I'm not romanced" and stop sexual interactions is fair enough. But for her to then only say her partners romantic efforts are a last resort to get her into bed and refuse sexual intimacy is bull. He wants to have sex. You have taken all the power in the relationship by refusing such a vital part of human interaction. Of course he will come crawling to you with gifts. Because you have said you won't give him what he craves unless he "romances" you (this of course means "Buy me something expensive").

 

If a woman says she doesn't want to have sex, chances are it means she just doesn't want to have sex with you. Granted of course that some women have illnesses, or a depleted sex drive due to menopause which prevent them from expressing themselves sexually. But if a perfectly healthy, otherwise happy woman stops sexual intimacy, grasping at straws for any excuse, then any male has the right to be upset, and to potentially find it a deal breaker.

 

I have frequently seen people tell women on LS to leave their man because he doesn't stop looking at porn, he wants sex more then you do, etc etc. I find no problem with this advice because women find men looking at porn a deal breaker. So why is it okay for a woman to stop such a vital part of their relationship and it is perfectly fine, the man is just a pig and only wants sex? If he breaks up with you then whoa he is an ******* and not worth your time

[StayClose]

Not every woman needs to be wined and dined as a means of romance, in fact most I've talked to would rather the man did little things around the house to make them feel special. Stuff like doing the laundry one morning without being asked, ironing the clothes, cleaning around the house, etc. I heard a saying once that the sexiest thing in the world to a woman is the sight of a man cleaning, usually cleaning *their* home without being asked. In my experience this is most definitely true. So if what you are doing for romance isn't working, perhaps you need to reevaluate what it is that *she* considers romantic. It may not be what you think it is.

 

That is a commonly alleged load of crap. At my house I do the vacumming, most of the cooking and kitchen cleaning. I also do foot and back massages. She does appreciate all this. She says "thank you," but none of this appreciation converts into sexual desire.

 

If it were really true that women were turned on by men vacumming, then most vacumming would be done by men. Single guys meeting women would offer to vacuum the women's homes. Vacumme ads would look more like beer, Cialis or Axe spray ads.

[whichwayisup]

If it were really true that women were turned on by men vacumming, then most vacumming would be done by men. Single guys meeting women would offer to vacuum the women's homes. Vacumme ads would look more like beer, Cialis or Axe spray ads.

Try vaccuuming naked. I do that on occasion and it definately gets my husband's attention....Especially if I need sex and I know he's not really in the mood...(I know, I know, its abit manipulative of me, but my intentions are good!) hhehehe..

[bish]

This question is for the males?

 

1) Should you deny your GF/Wife of romance if she’s not in the mood to have sex? Do you think romance and intimacy should be interdependent? “Romance me, and I’ll rewarded you with intimacy; you partake in intimacy and I’ll reward you with romance”. Do you think this is fair?

 

 

I don't think a guy should stop romancing his W/gf if she simply doesn't want to have sex here and there. But if intimacy is denied all the time...then why should the guy keep bothering to try?

 

 

2) If you are denied but you still romance her, yet she denies you again, should you continue romancing?

 

yes

[woodsfield]

Try vaccuuming naked. I do that on occasion and it definately gets my husband's attention....quote]

 

i need to try that one with my wife since she finds me doing household chores romantic.

 

i think all need to give a little to get a little...stop getting some, and the relationship is no longer 50/50 or 80/20 or whatever you think it is.

 

healthy relationships (sexual or not) are all about give and take, compromises and sacrifice. however, you can only sacrifice so much.

[whichwayisup]

i need to try that one with my wife since she finds me doing household chores romantic.

 

Definately try it. Or if you wanna look sexy, put on a pair of black silk boxers.

 

i think all need to give a little to get a little...stop getting some, and the relationship is no longer 50/50 or 80/20 or whatever you think it is.

 

healthy relationships (sexual or not) are all about give and take, compromises and sacrifice. however, you can only sacrifice so much

 

True. And there will be times when one person gives more, and other takes more...And vice versa. The key is, not to over react during those times and just know that things will even out again, ofcourse, with the help of communicating and understanding eachother.

[Trialbyfire]

Intimacy is the key word, not romance. If there's no intimate connection and romancing is mechanical, it would be difficult to want sex with the other party.

 

Intimacy, desire, need and physical attraction are all elements of healthy love and interaction with your partner. If you separate the elements, the results will not be satisfactory.

 

In order to be intimate with your partner, you have to respect and trust each other, enough so there's a strong bond of understanding. Share of yourself and you will both want to please each other. Protect yourself and your relationship will fail.

[CynicalP]

If it were really true that women were turned on by men vacumming, then most vacumming would be done by men. Single guys meeting women would offer to vacuum the women's homes. Vacumme ads would look more like beer, Cialis or Axe spray ads.

 

 

AH ha ha this is brillant and the truth. If your sharing the same living space with a woman (GF/Wife) they rightfully expect you to contribute your share of the household chores fully clothed or not. I have yet to experience completion of my chores translating into sexual appreciation.

 

Also if your stuck with a woman with a low libido no amount of romantic intimacy is going to translate into equal sexual intimacy. If your lucky you might get guilt sex once every 3 to 4 months depending how much effort you put into it.

[Trialbyfire]

It appears that the supposition is that sex is being withheld on a conscious or active level, not that the wife/gf isn't interested due to lack of intimacy previously.

[CynicalP]

It appears that the supposition is that sex is being withheld on a conscious or active level, not that the wife/gf isn't interested due to lack of intimacy previously.

 

I suppose there are times where sex is withheld for whatever purpose but It's my belief ( however warped ) in a long term relationship a lot of the cases of sexless relationship is simply due to one partner's diminished libido. I don't think there is a malious intent to withhold sex just no sexual desire whatsoever or at the least a very low priority in their life.

[Trialbyfire]

I suppose there are times where sex is withheld for whatever purpose but It's my belief ( however warped ) in a long term relationship a lot of the cases of sexless relationship is simply due to one partner's diminished libido. I don't think there is a malious intent to withhold sex just no sexual desire whatsoever or at the least a very low priority in their life.

I wouldn't doubt this at all, whether it's physiological, psychological or a combination of both.

 

I should state that this situation isn't something that's happened within my marriage or with someone I've been fully invested in. But I do understand it from the perspective that if there's uninvestment or not full investment during the term of the relationship, this could easily happen.

[Mustang Sally]

In response to the original question: "Should you stop romancing...."

 

Well, what do YOU want to do???

 

Either:

1) Yes, stop the romancing because you feel you are not getting your needs met after 'putting out' (with the romance) in order to meet her needs

 

Or

 

2) Keep up with the romancing because you feel you must not have filled her 'Love Bucket' up enough yet to get the intimacy you desire

 

No matter what, you still have a problem, right?

Not getting the intimacy you desire +/- her potentially still not getting her (emotional?) needs met.

 

Thus you really need to sit down and have a heart-to-heart and see if you can work things out.

 

There are too many possibilities to list here of WHY this situation might occur in any given relationship. But in any case, I think the only REAL hope for any resolution to this type of issue is for the people involved to do some SERIOUS communicating (with a counselor or not) to try to work out a mutally acceptable solution.

[marriedwithtwo]

If they feel no desire or sexual need, then some long, truthful discussions (as to why) need to happen, and marriage counseling or a physician's examination might be in order.

 

What about when one spouse is just not very sexual (by nature, or has become that way over time)? They love their spouse dearly and in the deepest way, but could care less about sex except doing it for the needs of their spouse?

 

How much of talking will it take, for all parties to realize the truth, she (in my case) just doesn't care much for sex as a whole, and it has nothing to do with their love for their spouse?

[CynicalP]

What about when one spouse is just not very sexual (by nature, or has become that way over time)? They love their spouse dearly and in the deepest way, but could care less about sex except doing it for the needs of their spouse?

 

How much of talking will it take, for all parties to realize the truth, she (in my case) just doesn't care much for sex as a whole, and it has nothing to do with their love for their spouse?

 

That's the million dollar question. What does the other partner do when the other partner just doesn't have the libido or interest in having sex. You can't force the person to engage in sex and trying to initiate sex with such a person often leads to a very unsatisifying sexual experience ( you can just tell that person is going thru the motions and gets little from the experience ). No amount of romanatic intimacy seems to tigger the other person sexual desires. Why would it when they don't equate sex with intimacy. The idea of finding a partner outside the relationship just for sex would be an act of betrayal and lead to jealousy and wounded pride. For the person with a healthly active libido the options seem bleak.

[cranium]

Intimacy, desire, need and physical attraction are all elements of healthy love and interaction with your partner. If you separate the elements, the results will not be satisfactory.

 

In order to be intimate with your partner, you have to respect and trust each other, enough so there's a strong bond of understanding. Share of yourself and you will both want to please each other. Protect yourself and your relationship will fail.

 

I don't think there is a malious intent to withhold sex just no sexual desire whatsoever or at the least a very low priority in their life.

 

That's the million dollar question. What does the other partner do when the other partner just doesn't have the libido or interest in having sex. You can't force the person to engage in sex and trying to initiate sex with such a person often leads to a very unsatisifying sexual experience ( you can just tell that person is going thru the motions and gets little from the experience ). No amount of romanatic intimacy seems to tigger the other person sexual desires. Why would it when they don't equate sex with intimacy. The idea of finding a partner outside the relationship just for sex would be an act of betrayal and lead to jealousy and wounded pride. For the person with a healthly active libido the options seem bleak.

 

 

Discontent with the sexuality of a relationship can create separation. It enhances the possibility of creating an emotional break or someone having an affair. Sexuality considered within the whole relationship, together with physical and emotional well being.

 

What if one partner enjoys receiving sexual physical touch (albeit infrequently) and is at the same time (everytime-didn't used to be) uncomfortable reciprocating sexual physical touch to much degree? Not denying intimacy, just not a balanced give and take at those times the low libido partner is in the mood to play.

 

The low libido partner controls the when, invariably the where, definitely the wear and also the how and what. How long should/would a sensible, sensitive, high libido partner persevere before becoming apathetic? No amount of conversation changes anything. If the lack of sexuality has led one partner to be disinterested, what drives the desire to be romantic?

[IMUSTBEAFOOL]

i would never consider lack of sex a dealbreaker in a relationship - that would be insulting to my partner. creating initimate moments don't have anything to do with the old slap n tickle. and as we age our drives ebb and flow, women go thru changes that effect that as well

 

the important elements are respect and trust - and sharing yourself in ways other than sexual. for example - once i got my exgf to write and sing and record a song - she had never done that before and when she was doing it with me it was the most amazing experience to see her occasional look at me and say 'thank u - i love u' with her eyes. i'll take that over a blow job anyday.

 

.