Sexless Marriages And The Men Who Get Suckered Into Them

[carhill]

So you like blue balls and an empty bank account? LOL...

 

Fear is exactly why men put up with shyte from women. Fear of bankruptcy; fear of never seeing their kids; fear of being alone. Pure and simple fear.

 

Once the emotion of fear is overcome, it's just business

[NoIDidn't]

Meh. There are plenty of men who, once they marry, stop all romance and most hygiene. Like the women above it was not something they enjoyed, just a means to an end.

 

LOL. So true.

 

This is not something that's limited to women.

[Mr. Lucky]

As far as the romance thing, I've experienced this in every relationship. In my marriage, I had to fight to get some of that back.

You bring up a good point - doesn't almost every marriage hit this wall at some point? You lose that white-hot connection that brings many couples together and have to basically re-invent yourself as a couple. I think that's why so many post that their partner "changed" in regards to sex as the relationship matured. It's a big challenge because you almost have to succeed twice - once during the courtship/marriage phase and again during the 5-7 year (differs by couple) adjustment period with kids, mortgage, etc. And that success calls on two different skill sets - the romantic "lover" early on and the committed "partner" later. It would seem that some are better at one than the other...

 

Mr. Lucky

[Sam Spade]

So you like blue balls and an empty bank account? LOL...

 

Fear is exactly why men put up with shyte from women. Fear of bankruptcy; fear of never seeing their kids; fear of being alone. Pure and simple fear.

 

Once the emotion of fear is overcome, it's just business

 

Yeah, true, but come on, men are not helpless. If a divorce happens, cupkake's standard of living will drop as well, so she stands to lose too. While there are many horror stories of complete financial disintegration the law is not that blind. Same with the kids. Sure you lose unlimited access, but you are guaranteed some access. I think it's better to accept second best solutions rather to be a hostage.

 

I prepare for any contingencies, which includes living simple life and payng off debt, so if anything like that happens 10 years down the road, not much will change, except I will probably find ways to make more money, just to piss her off . But hopefully I'll never have to resort to my nuclear optioin .

[Neutrino]

I pulled this from a post by Toodamnpragmatic in the sexless marriage thread. It's not her words, but from some magazine. I think the situation is unbelievably typical.

 

 

 

First, note how there is no shame about what she has done, or sympathy for her cheated husband. She's the 'devestated' one. But the point I want to make is why does society and the media refuse to discuss the fact that so many women enter marriage with a guy they don't love (or have to 'learn' to love, ha) or find attractive purely for the security and 'good father' role he can provide (even if the kids aren't his)... until his usefulness is over and he's tossed aside like trash (minus half his stuff and his kids probably, though that issue does get some mainstream debate).

 

I've seen this plenty in real life. I see it plenty here. Has it always been this way? Is it because there are no real men left who can fulfil both roles as a sexual prize and be a good provider too? Is it that women take their marriage vows less seriously than before?

 

I don't want this to be a woman-bashing thread, but let's not pretend this isn't the way many many marriages (don't) work these days. The women, like the above, probably don't plan to do things that way, the men going in are equally optimistic. But can someone point me to anywhere this phenomena is being discussed? It seems like the whole of society has its head in the sand.

 

This is the result of social conditioning. As a girl most are taught to look nice, catch a rich man get married and have babies, as a boy most are taught to attract and capture (financially) the prettiest girl get married and have babies. This is the typical and most common brain-wash, naturally originating from the main religions, where rulers needed to produce workers, tax-payers and soldiers to guarantee their rule.

 

Most people, learn to see marriage as a need with a dead-line, they get married for those reasons because they simply don't think any further. Yes there are many reasons you can fall out of love (partner turns out to be a different person, people change over the years to become a poor match, meeting someone else), especially those who didn't live together prior to getting married - it is like buying a car without test-driving it first !

[Woggle]

I've been in a relationship like this. The guy just stopped bathing after a while. To be fair, he showered a couple of times a week, but he sweated and smoked and just stunk after a while. The relationship didn't last long. As far as the romance thing, I've experienced this in every relationship. In my marriage, I had to fight to get some of that back.

 

Who the hell stops bathing? When I was single I made sure to keep myself clean. Does hygeine just go out the window because somebody is married?

[Woggle]

So you like blue balls and an empty bank account? LOL...

 

Fear is exactly why men put up with shyte from women. Fear of bankruptcy; fear of never seeing their kids; fear of being alone. Pure and simple fear.

 

Once the emotion of fear is overcome, it's just business

 

Very true plus many men think this is the way it supposed to be. They are supposed to love a so called strong and independent woman which these days is really just an excuse to treat men like crap. They think that it is somehow their fault and if they break their back trying to please a woman she will eventually realize he is a good guy and she will love him. It never works that way but men are never taught anything other than the women=victim way of looking at marriage. Most men who do grow some balls and put their foor down usually have some success. Once men lose the fear and live their life for themselves good things usually happen.

[giotto]

I don't believe there are that many women out there who enter in a marriage just for cynical reasons... there might be a few, but most couples get married because they love each other. Things might change afterwards, for many reasons, but unfortunately it's the lack of communication/lack of honesty on the long run that kills the marriage. I think with children and all the rest - mortgage, cars, holidays, second homes, etc. (we do live in a materialistic society), we lose sight of what a marriage really should be, we lose sight of the basics... many of us - men - also marry without having a clue about what a marriage/being married entails, what happens when children are born or when our wives enter menopause... there should be a course on being married...

[PandorasBox]

"Sexless marriages, and the men who get suckered into them."

 

 

Maybe they that's the kind of mate they attracted to themselves?

 

I don't think they really got "suckered" into them, it was a choice they made, and entered into.

[Woggle]

"Sexless marriages, and the men who get suckered into them."

 

 

Maybe they that's the kind of mate they attracted to themselves?

 

I don't think they really got "suckered" into them, it was a choice they made, and entered into.

 

Some women can be very deceiving and very good actresses.

[Thaddeus]

I don't think they really got "suckered" into them, it was a choice they made, and entered into.

Unfortunately, I have to disagree with this because I've seen it just too many times.

 

After marriage, people change. Always. The people that walk down the aisle are different people a year later.

 

So when a person makes a choice to marry a partner, they're making that choice based on who the partner is in that moment. But a year or more later, she's suddenly not interested in sex and he's suddenly not as romantic. She'd be more interested in sex if he was more romantic, and he'd be more romantic if she was more interested in sex. And around and around and around it goes.

 

IMHO, it all starts with sex. All of it.

[PandorasBox]

Some women can be very deceiving and very good actresses.

 

 

I understand, and thats where the word "suckered" would fit that discription. I know to, this doesn't always apply to every woman out there. Alot of PEOPLE don't always know what they are getting into and you're right. BUT some do, and go with it anyway in hopes things will change. This can apply to women or men.

[PandorasBox]

Unfortunately, I have to disagree with this because I've seen it just too many times.

 

After marriage, people change. Always. The people that walk down the aisle are different people a year later.

 

So when a person makes a choice to marry a partner, they're making that choice based on who the partner is in that moment. But a year or more later, she's suddenly not interested in sex and he's suddenly not as romantic. She'd be more interested in sex if he was more romantic, and he'd be more romantic if she was more interested in sex. And around and around and around it goes.

 

IMHO, it all starts with sex. All of it.

 

 

I agree and see your point. I think too though, that if we look hard enough, the person who we thought had changed was really that person from the beginning. Most signs are there in the very beginning of what kind of person we may be getting involed with. I think sometimes we miss those little clues. NOT always though because I agree some people can change, because I think some people can be deceiving. Basically, I believe most of the time, people will usually show you who they really are in the beginning.

[giotto]

I agree and see your point. I think too though, that if we look hard enough, the person who we thought had changed was really that person from the beginning. Most signs are there in the very beginning of what kind of person we may be getting involed with. I think sometimes we miss those little clues. NOT always though because I agree some people can change, because I think some people can be deceiving. Basically, I believe most of the time, people will usually show you who they really are in the beginning.

 

yes, I saw those signs and I chose to ignore them... in hindsight, they were big alarm bells...

[Thaddeus]

I agree and see your point. I think too though, that if we look hard enough, the person who we thought had changed was really that person from the beginning.

Yes, I see what you mean and I agree. Thing is, when the partners are so infatuated with one another ("Oh, he/she's THE ONE!!" and "We've got such great chemistry!!" and "We have this fantastic connection!!" and other such rubbish) they tend not to see reality but instead see their partner through this unrealistic and hormone-clouded fog.

 

It's another reason why one should never, ever soley rely upon their feelings ("Follow your heart!" "Trust your instincts!" "Go with your gut!" etc etc) when choosing a partner. Good old-fashioned common sense has to come into it too.

[65tr6]

people change over the years to become a poor match, meeting someone else), especially those who didn't live together prior to getting married - it is like buying a car without test-driving it first !

 

I don't buy this..living together prior is not going to help at all. You said it yourself, people change. So you lived together, now you get married and what if the other person changes ?

 

I don't think it is like buying a car without test driving it first either. It might be great when you test drive it, but when you get it home, (get married) then you start noticing the quirks. What was unimportant to you back then could now be HUGE...in fact could be a deal breaker. You ditched cruise control option when you test drove your car because you thought you didn't need it (and to save some dough) but now you can't drive long distance without it !

 

That's why they say, marriage is constant work. People change. Needs change. You have to continuously work on it.

[NoIDidn't]

You bring up a good point - doesn't almost every marriage hit this wall at some point? You lose that white-hot connection that brings many couples together and have to basically re-invent yourself as a couple. I think that's why so many post that their partner "changed" in regards to sex as the relationship matured. It's a big challenge because you almost have to succeed twice - once during the courtship/marriage phase and again during the 5-7 year (differs by couple) adjustment period with kids, mortgage, etc. And that success calls on two different skill sets - the romantic "lover" early on and the committed "partner" later. It would seem that some are better at one than the other...

 

Mr. Lucky

 

Actually what you say is documented by relationship gurus and psychologists. Marriage and the partners in it are reinvented several times and at very specific year markers. After the 5 to 7 year mark, there is the 14 to 17 year mark. After this one, there is another at about the 22 to 25 year mark.

 

I think if we were to look at divorce rates, we'd find that these numbers line up mostly.

[NoIDidn't]

I don't believe there are that many women out there who enter in a marriage just for cynical reasons... there might be a few, but most couples get married because they love each other. Things might change afterwards, for many reasons, but unfortunately it's the lack of communication/lack of honesty on the long run that kills the marriage. I think with children and all the rest - mortgage, cars, holidays, second homes, etc. (we do live in a materialistic society), we lose sight of what a marriage really should be, we lose sight of the basics... many of us - men - also marry without having a clue about what a marriage/being married entails, what happens when children are born or when our wives enter menopause... there should be a course on being married...

 

But there ARE courses on being married. Its just that most of us are to arrogant to think we need them. Its like parenthood, we assume we already know everything or that it will all just come naturally.

 

Well, guess what comes naturally? Self-destruction. Without actual knowledge of how we should expect these changes to enter into our relationships and how to head them off, all we know how to do is get defensive and destroy the very thing we thought we knew how to handle.

[giotto]

well, when I started going out with my now wife I was only 22... didn't have a clue about relationships and I suppose my wife didn't know very much either... so, there you go... I was 27 when we got married and wasn't aware such courses existed... and anyway, you are right. I think I would have been too arrogant to go to one...

[NoIDidn't]

well, when I started going out with my now wife I was only 22... didn't have a clue about relationships and I suppose my wife didn't know very much either... so, there you go... I was 27 when we got married and wasn't aware such courses existed... and anyway, you are right. I think I would have been too arrogant to go to one...

 

I married at 22. I look back now and wonder WTF was I thinking?!

 

Arrogance was the least of my issues. LOL.

 

We took two courses and passed the instructors assessments on our "readiness" for marriage. We were so in love and so willing to bend for the other, that we thought it would always be that way. Naivete has killed quite a few marriages too.

 

We thought we had great communication. We didn't then. We have good communication now. I'm with you

[PandorasBox]

I married at 25. I think for me, it was that I was very co-dependent. As was he. It didn't last. I ended the marriage based on various issues. I broke free from being co-dependent. Personally, I think he enjoyed it. The way I see it, I did us both a favor.

[stillafool]

I pulled this from a post by Toodamnpragmatic in the sexless marriage thread. It's not her words, but from some magazine. I think the situation is unbelievably typical.

 

 

 

First, note how there is no shame about what she has done, or sympathy for her cheated husband. She's the 'devestated' one. But the point I want to make is why does society and the media refuse to discuss the fact that so many women enter marriage with a guy they don't love (or have to 'learn' to love, ha) or find attractive purely for the security and 'good father' role he can provide (even if the kids aren't his)... until his usefulness is over and he's tossed aside like trash (minus half his stuff and his kids probably, though that issue does get some mainstream debate).

 

I've seen this plenty in real life. I see it plenty here. Has it always been this way? Is it because there are no real men left who can fulfil both roles as a sexual prize and be a good provider too? Is it that women take their marriage vows less seriously than before?

 

I don't want this to be a woman-bashing thread, but let's not pretend this isn't the way many many marriages (don't) work these days. The women, like the above, probably don't plan to do things that way, the men going in are equally optimistic. But can someone point me to anywhere this phenomena is being discussed? It seems like the whole of society has its head in the sand.

 

Maybe it has something to do with their mothers telling them to marry a man who can take care of them financially. Thus they end up with a high earner and no love. When women learn to make their own money and pay their own way they won't have to subject themselves to this. I think women who use a man as a paycheck and security are trash. However, the same thing could be said for men. How many men get out of college and marry a woman who has the "breeding" they think they need to become successful men. Only to realize later they don't love her and end up cheating on her with other women. The same thing applies to them. It's not just women who do this, but people.

[Mr. Lucky]

We thought we had great communication. We didn't then. We have good communication now.

So maybe the real issue in some of these sexless marriages isn't that one partner inevitably changed (which you see posted over and over again - "he/she was a sex machine when we were dating and then after marriage and kids changed") but that they didn't do an adequate job of communicating the issues behind that change to their spouse. Or they communicated but the spouse didn't listen or want to hear. I guess that's why I have a hard time believing those threads where the posters say that everything is great in their marriage except for the sex. Doesn't seem possible that the communication, respect, consideration and non-sexual intimacy can all be great and still no sex. Just my opinion...

 

Mr. Lucky

[65tr6]

Doesn't seem possible that the communication, respect, consideration and non-sexual intimacy can all be great and still no sex.

 

agree. Question to ask is....

 

How would you rate your marriage on a scale of 10 ? (do this to both the spouses)...and correct response is the one from the spouses who rates lower.

 

(not just the sex, communication, respect..but the complete marriage).

 

I believe you either have a great marriage or a bad one. I don't think there are two many in betweens.

[sally4sara]

Yes, I see what you mean and I agree. Thing is, when the partners are so infatuated with one another ("Oh, he/she's THE ONE!!" and "We've got such great chemistry!!" and "We have this fantastic connection!!" and other such rubbish) they tend not to see reality but instead see their partner through this unrealistic and hormone-clouded fog.

 

It's another reason why one should never, ever soley rely upon their feelings ("Follow your heart!" "Trust your instincts!" "Go with your gut!" etc etc) when choosing a partner. Good old-fashioned common sense has to come into it too.

 

So then you believe people should not marry who they love, but rather who would be the best provider? most stable? and sucker them into marriage?

 

The OP started this thread stating it is the men who were chosen for THESE qualities that get "suckered" by women who settled for THESE qualities and did not, instead, chose someone they loved.

 

Which way do men wish to get chosen?

 

I feel you can pick someone you love and marry them only if they are ALSO a stable and long term kind of person, but it feels like the theme of and opinions in this thread are a bit confused and most think it has to be one or the other no matter how it is initially presented. A woman says she loves the guy but really just values his stability is a manipulative woman out to sucker some poor guy? Now here, it seems like Thaddeus says people shouldn't choose a mate based on love as that is a misleading fog state that hinders one's ability to choose wisely?

 

Which way is it fellas?

 

I asked something very similar before in another thread where men were bitching about women valuing men for the size of their wallet, but the same men wouldn't let a woman pay for her own meal.....

 

Do you want to be wallets or not? Do you want to be valued for love or stability? If you can't make up your minds about what you are defined by, why is it a woman's fault if her opinion of a man's definition in her life changes? And then some say people are always changing, but men still think it is due to women changing - her sex drive, her intentions, her regard.....SHE is the one changing in the marriage even while her husband vacillates between wanting to be big man provider and wanting to be Fonzie?

 

I truly am curious about this because it doesn't play out in my current relationship. It didn't even factor into my marriage or even why it failed. It has never been a selling point in who I have chosen to date....I'm not some relationship guru, but you're all starting to make me wonder.

I'm so confused.