T L Posted January 25, 2008 Posted January 25, 2008 I think he should divorce her and push for joint custody. I mean, is it that difficult for a man to get joint custody in this day and age? I don't know, but I would think not. As they live in England joint custody is unlikely, he would probably see the kids every other weekend if the wife wanted to be funny about it.
Cobra_X30 Posted January 25, 2008 Posted January 25, 2008 It wasn't? If it was... nobody talked about it... and it never got written down. So I assume that society found this a generally an unimportant issue at the time. Think about society at that time. I tend to think that our current societal structure allows this to be a much larger problem than it really should be.
Zolie Posted January 25, 2008 Posted January 25, 2008 It wasn't? Ditto. I personally believe this kind of problem has existed for centuries, if not since the beginning of time.
Zolie Posted January 25, 2008 Posted January 25, 2008 If it was... nobody talked about it... and it never got written down. So I assume that society found this a generally an unimportant issue at the time. Think about society at that time. I tend to think that our current societal structure allows this to be a much larger problem than it really should be. Sure they talked about it. How do we know what women talked about 100 years ago, among themselves? Friends, sisters, neighbors, etc surely would mention their dissatisfactions with each other when they got together for little chats over coffee or at the back fence. And men did the same over drinks at the bar. Perhaps the talks were more subtle than today's conversations, and probably filled with innuendoes and euphemisms, but rest assured this topic was discussed in some fashion. And was certainly written about. There are also countless books, articles, etc (don't ask me to name them, though, without research, lol) that make references to affairs, especially for men. It was almost a given for men to have mistresses, in fact. Women did, too, it just wasn't accepted as easily.
Mustang Sally Posted January 25, 2008 Posted January 25, 2008 As they live in England joint custody is unlikely, he would probably see the kids every other weekend if the wife wanted to be funny about it. Alright, then. Please excuse my ignorance. (Damn ego-centric Americans....)
Cobra_X30 Posted January 25, 2008 Posted January 25, 2008 Sure they talked about it. How do we know what women talked about 100 years ago, among themselves? Friends, sisters, neighbors, etc surely would mention their dissatisfactions with each other when they got together for little chats over coffee or at the back fence. And men did the same over drinks at the bar. Perhaps the talks were more subtle than today's conversations, and probably filled with innuendoes and euphemisms, but rest assured this topic was discussed in some fashion. And was certainly written about. There are also countless books, articles, etc (don't ask me to name them, though, without research, lol) that make references to affairs, especially for men. It was almost a given for men to have mistresses, in fact. Women did, too, it just wasn't accepted as easily. Well, I think your pretty much correct. However I was referencing Scrivdogs problem specifically. It was fairly common for women to be engaged in a sexless marriage... due to no fault of their own. Look up female hysteria as a medical diagnosis. However, the opposite was rarely true.
Zolie Posted January 25, 2008 Posted January 25, 2008 Well, I think your pretty much correct. However I was referencing Scrivdogs problem specifically. It was fairly common for women to be engaged in a sexless marriage... due to no fault of their own. Look up female hysteria as a medical diagnosis. However, the opposite was rarely true. I'm not sure I follow what you are saying. Sorry for being slow! I'm not familiar with Scrivdog's situation. I guess what I was trying to say is that there have always been women who have not wanted to have sex with their husbands, like the author in the article. It's not just something that has occurred in the last 50 years or so (which is what I thought you were saying?). The difference, though, is that today's society dictates that women can actually say no to their husbands. 100 years ago (give or take a decade or two) women were their husband's property and had to engage in sex with them even when they didn't want to. Even then, some men would still keep a mistress, who were typically more sexual than wives, if we go by the stereotype. Another difference is that today's women are not as likely to tolerate a husband having an OW. 100 years ago women generally accepted it because they had no choice. But, since, I'm not familiar with how Scrivdog is handling his wife's lack of interest in sex, then I shouldn't offer opinions, lol.
Cobra_X30 Posted January 25, 2008 Posted January 25, 2008 The difference, though, is that today's society dictates that women can actually say no to their husbands. 100 years ago (give or take a decade or two) women were their husband's property and had to engage in sex with them even when they didn't want to. Even then, some men would still keep a mistress, who were typically more sexual than wives, if we go by the stereotype. Another difference is that today's women are not as likely to tolerate a husband having an OW. 100 years ago women generally accepted it because they had no choice. But, since, I'm not familiar with how Scrivdog is handling his wife's lack of interest in sex, then I shouldn't offer opinions, lol. No, you understand exactly what I am alluding to! See during the last 100 years or so, our society has undergone a very big restructuring. It definitely bucks the trend of the last couple thousand years of our evolutionary development. I believe that our libido's are designed to work properly under specific types of circumstances. Women are instinctualy predisposed to try and keep their mate. Men are the same, but in a different way. Now, I've spent some time thinking about this... and it is entirely possible that when you have no particular need to keep you man, those instincts go haywire. Similarly, for men... in situations where you are not required... this can also cause wire crossing.
Mustang Sally Posted January 25, 2008 Posted January 25, 2008 I believe that our libido's are designed to work properly under specific types of circumstances. Women are instinctualy predisposed to try and keep their mate. Men are the same, but in a different way. Uh....so how do you explain me, dear? those instincts go haywire. ... this can also cause wire crossing. Ah! There. That explains it!
Zolie Posted January 25, 2008 Posted January 25, 2008 I believe that our libido's are designed to work properly under specific types of circumstances. Yep, I agree. I am a textbook case when it comes to this. I am not the least bit interested in sex unless I am in love or interested in a man (and know he is also interested) My libido is completely dormant otherwise. But, find me in love, and watch out - my libido is as high as any 15 year old boy's, lol. Woman are instinctualy predisposed to try and keep their mate. Men are the same, but in a different way. Yep, agree with this, too. I also think most (all?) women are wired to seek and settle on one man (at a time), while most (all?) men are wired to seek as many women as possible to inseminate. Sounds barbaric, but I truly believe most of us are throwbacks, with traces of this innate trend still in our dna.
Kasan Posted January 25, 2008 Posted January 25, 2008 I believe that our libido's are designed to work properly under specific types of circumstances. Women are instinctualy predisposed to try and keep their mate. Men are the same, but in a different way. Now, I've spent some time thinking about this... and it is entirely possible that when you have no particular need to keep you man, those instincts go haywire. Similarly, for men... in situations where you are not required... this can also cause wire crossing. This is really interesting to me. Would you elaborate?
Cobra_X30 Posted January 26, 2008 Posted January 26, 2008 Yep, agree with this, too. I also think most (all?) women are wired to seek and settle on one man (at a time), while most (all?) men are wired to seek as many women as possible to inseminate. Sounds barbaric, but I truly believe most of us are throwbacks, with traces of this innate trend still in our dna. Exactly! The only statement I can add to that is generally speaking Men are more programmed to be opportunistic, than simple seed spreaders. In other words... stick with one woman and increase the survival rate of those offspring, yet actively take advantage of any outside opportunities and put no effort into those potential offspring. That is more than likely where the social taboo comes from. This is really interesting to me. Would you elaborate? Well, I believe that we are born with a certain instictual nature, and the ability to control it. I also think that in the course of human development other Humans were one of the larger dangers to survival. Note that human females have masked fertility cycles... unlike any other mammal. Also note that sex is used for bonding and pleasure, not simply offspring production. Why is this? What biological purpose does it serve? I can tell you that a male/female relationship with no sex... strikes me as not natural. It produces fewer offspring, therefore should not be naturally viable. Especially in a natural world where other males would likely destroy the current children were the woman to choose a new mate. I think sexless marriages happen when our natural instincts do not fit the situation and environments we create!
Storyrider Posted January 26, 2008 Posted January 26, 2008 Well, also, in more primitive times the alpha male would automatically be the biggest or the most successful hunter. Now we have so many more variables that would make a woman pursue a man. Big and strong = sexy, but it doesn't necessarily = the best genes for modern life. Bill Gates could be the ultimate 21st century alpha male, but he has no physical magnetism. So at an intellectual, common sense level it would make genetic sense to pursue him, but we balk at a more primal level.
norajane Posted January 26, 2008 Posted January 26, 2008 Grrrr...the justifications people will go through to not take the burden of their responsibilities for settling. She chose the nurturing provider and friend, instead of waiting and looking for someone who she was physically compatible with, as well as the rest. Her husband sounds like a great guy but man, what an idiot not to put her in her place, after her EA. Also, it's totally unrealistic to expect that the thrill of the chase will continue throughout the entire marriage. I think this woman has read too many romance novels. I totally agree. It sounds like she never really experienced passion in sex, so maybe she settled without realizing she was settling. "Now I believe there are thousands of other married women who would love to admit sex isn't all it's cracked up to be. But, if the constant cliches in women's magazines and chick-lit are to believed, we should all be enjoying prowess in the boardroom and swooning every night in the bedroom. "It's the great taboo that no one dares admit - that sex is often a let-down."
Woggle Posted January 26, 2008 Posted January 26, 2008 If my widfe ever became like that I would divorce her in a heartbeat and if we had kids I would cheat. This is the one area where I feel cheating is ok but a man should be 100% honest with his wife. A man should never be expected to live like a catholic priest unless he wishes to.
OWoman Posted January 26, 2008 Posted January 26, 2008 I will concede, however, that in this woman's case, she might be inclined to re-ignite things with her husband, if good, orgasmic sex was part of the picture. But, it sounds like her husband is not a good lover, by her definition of a good lover. Clearly, she does not have orgasms with him. She's only ever cum with one of her 24 partners, by her own admission. (It's not stated how many times.) Now whose fault is that, I wonder? Both the text and the picture suggest she's an uptight cow with body image issues who expects the guy to do all the work and get it all right, while she lies aback and thinks of tomorrow's shopping trip. "Good, orgasmic sex" is NEVER going to be part of this woman's picture - the only time she could work herself into arousal was online over some fantasy guy she'd lost out on and couldn't have. Unless of course she gets herself into therapy - and does something about her body image. I mean, honestly, sucking your gut in for a photo just makes it obvious you're (a) sucking your gut in to hide that you're even fatter and (b) are embarrassed at how fat you are.
OWoman Posted January 26, 2008 Posted January 26, 2008 As they live in England joint custody is unlikely, he would probably see the kids every other weekend if the wife wanted to be funny about it. Joint residency in England is perfectly possible. I'm not sure what you base your assertion on, but I know of many divorced couples who have joint residency (custody) of their children. This is particularly likely where the divorce followed the two years separation route, and the joint residency was in place during the separation - the children spending alternate weeks with each parent, or whatever - so that the court simply finalised the arrangement in the final order of divorce. If the husband in this case filed for divorce based on his wife's unreasonable behaviour, he'd have a stronger claim and the courts may be sympathetic to him getting residency and his wife getting access. Which is likely why she's staying put rather than going the D route, as she no doubt sees the writing on the wall and doesn't want to be seen as a failed mother AND a failed wife.
Wibble Posted January 26, 2008 Posted January 26, 2008 To be honest the big clue in this story is where it was published. The "Daily Mail" is a newspaper with a less than clean record for publishing the unvarnished truth. They will print whatever they need to to sell papers, and one of their favourite constituencies is the young/middle-aged female reader. In all probability one of the editors on "Femail" had a bit of a tiff with her other half, noticed this unsolicited pile of spiteful bilge in her tray and decided to publish it to prove a point. The point being that women have a "right" to have it all, and when they are frustrated in that "right", they can behave as badly as they like because it is always the fault of some misogynist male. The notion that she may, in some way be partly responsible for her own situation has not even entered her head. Now thankfully, in my experience, most women do not think like this, but they sure do like to read about the ones that do!
Frances Posted January 26, 2008 Posted January 26, 2008 To be honest the big clue in this story is where it was published. The "Daily Mail" is a newspaper with a less than clean record for publishing the unvarnished truth. They will print whatever they need to to sell papers, and one of their favourite constituencies is the young/middle-aged female reader. In all probability one of the editors on "Femail" had a bit of a tiff with her other half, noticed this unsolicited pile of spiteful bilge in her tray and decided to publish it to prove a point. The point being that women have a "right" to have it all, and when they are frustrated in that "right", they can behave as badly as they like because it is always the fault of some misogynist male. The notion that she may, in some way be partly responsible for her own situation has not even entered her head. Now thankfully, in my experience, most women do not think like this, but they sure do like to read about the ones that do! You are right about the paper. Anything for sales also she wants her book to sell. Perhaps her husband is in on it just for to publicize the book. They are most likely enjoying all the fuss.
Cobra_X30 Posted January 26, 2008 Posted January 26, 2008 Well, also, in more primitive times the alpha male would automatically be the biggest or the most successful hunter. Now we have so many more variables that would make a woman pursue a man. Big and strong = sexy, but it doesn't necessarily = the best genes for modern life. Bill Gates could be the ultimate 21st century alpha male, but he has no physical magnetism. So at an intellectual, common sense level it would make genetic sense to pursue him, but we balk at a more primal level. Remember that because it requires so much effort to raise a human child into adulthood... Herd style mating as many pack animals do simply wont work for us. So, you are actually hardwired to be attracted to way more than just physical hunting ability. In fact, social ability should be one of the top attractive factors. Along with the amount of attention you recieve! See the worlds best hunter/leader is worthless to you if he ignores you and the children you have together. The point of all this... is that you need to understand why you think/feel the way you do, so that you can use your rational ability to control that which is instictual within you.
Recommended Posts