DM Article

Person_one

Guest101 wrote: »

Is that a fair summation?

There are no words for what that was. Well, maybe 'alarming'.

duchy

heuchera wrote: »

A couple are two people "who are married or otherwise closely associated romantically or sexually" to take the dictionary definition.

So it's fair to assume that one or both of them would want to express themselves (with the other) sexually. Maliciously denying someone that is quite a fundamental thing.

Where do you get malicious from ?

Either one of a couple have a right to say No
If it happens on a frequent basis then there is discussion to be had about changes in levels of desire- but far more likely to be useful if that discussion is had at another time than at the point of refusal.

To claim someone is maliciously with-holding sex because they don't fancy it at that moment is frankly bonkers !!

(If I had 4 kids under five I doubt I'd have the energy for sex very often ....however it was their choice to have a large family close in age )

"Sorry I don't fancy it right now" isn't malicious -it's honest. If someone is so insecure they take a refusal as malice there's a lot more wrong with the relationship than just frequency of sex.

Guest101

Person_one wrote: »

There are no words for what that was. Well, maybe 'alarming'.

That's fine.


Was just trying to engage in some debate. But if you aren't game then we can sideline the topic.

heuchera

duchy wrote: »

Where do you get malicious from ?

Either one of a couple have a right to say No
If it happens on a frequent basis then there is discussion to be had about changes in levels of desire- but far more likely to be useful if that discussion is had at another time than at the point of refusal.

To claim someone is maliciously with-holding sex because they don't fancy it at that moment is frankly bonkers !!

(If I had 4 kids under five I doubt I'd have the energy for sex very often ....however it was their choice to have a large family close in age )

"Sorry I don't fancy it right now" isn't malicious -it's honest. If someone is so insecure they take a refusal as malice there's a lot more wrong with the relationship than just frequency of sex.

You appear to have misunderstood.

If somebody is maliciously withholding sex it is abuse. If it is not being done maliciously then obviously it's not.

Pollycat

duchy wrote: »

Where do you get malicious from ?

Either one of a couple have a right to say No
If it happens on a frequent basis then there is discussion to be had about changes in levels of desire- but far more likely to be useful if that discussion is had at another time than at the point of refusal.

To claim someone is maliciously with-holding sex because they don't fancy it at that moment is frankly bonkers !!

(If I had 4 kids under five I doubt I'd have the energy for sex very often ....however it was their choice to have a large family close in age )

"Sorry I don't fancy it right now" isn't malicious -it's honest. If someone is so insecure they take a refusal as malice there's a lot more wrong with the relationship than just frequency of sex.

I wouldn't eactly say this woman is being malicious but she sounds like she's not treating her husband very fairly.

A few quotes from the article:

It’s like Sam and me: we tend not to talk about sex — or the lack of it. I avoid the subject, and I don’t think Sam wants to start a discussion in case I get upset.We both hate confrontation and would prefer to brush things under the carpet. When he does try to initiate sex and I refuse, I never elaborate on why and he doesn’t push.

But no means no. Even in marriage, it is not an opening for a discussion. It’s the end of the conversation.

Sometimes he feels I am playing hard to get and will try to get me to return his advances. But it frustrates me because when I say I am not in the mood, I’m not asking for his help — I’m saying I have absolutely no interest.

I know I can trust Sam, and while he may be confused and hurt by my constant rejection, he’d never cheat on me.

I get why she maybe doesn't fancy sex as often as she used to and I get why she doesn't find her husband as attractive as she used to (actually, I think that the DM - or maybe the author of the article - have made him look more 'nerdy' than he probably is, even down to the way he's sat on the bed) but I can't understand why they don't have a proper conversation about it so he can hopefully appreciate her side of things - and maybe he wouldn't be 'confused' by her constant rejection..

Petra_70

Pollycat wrote: »

I wouldn't eactly say this woman is being malicious but she sounds like she's not treating her husband very fairly.

A few quotes from the article:
I get why she maybe doesn't fancy sex as often as she used to and I get why she doesn't find her husband as attractive as she used to (actually, I think that the DM - or maybe the author of the article - have made him look more 'nerdy' than he probably is, even down to the way he's sat on the bed) but I can't understand why they don't have a proper conversation about it so he can hopefully appreciate her side of things - and maybe he wouldn't be 'confused' by her constant rejection..

I wouldn't say he looks just nerdy; he looks fat and quite unnappealing, especially compared to how he looked before.

There is this general thought that it's just women that lose their looks, after having children etc, and jokes go around like 'if all brides are beautiful, where did all the ugly wives come from?' But the fact is that women don't 'lose their looks' any more than men. The old adage that men get 'distinguished' is a bit of a crock tbh. Men who look like Tom Selleck, or James Brolin, or Tom Jones are the exception rather than the rule, and men are more likely to be pot bellied, baldy, and hairy, with average teeth by middle age. Indeed, I see many more attractive women over 40, than I see attractive men over 40.

The guy in the article looks like he is punching above his weight, and she looks fairly OK, but judging by this article, her personality is repugnant. If I were him, I would leave, and find someone who cares about him more than she does!

Pollycat

Petra_70 wrote: »

I wouldn't say he looks just nerdy; he looks fat and quite unnappealing, especially compared to how he looked before.

I was being kind. :whistle:
He looks like somebody from a sitcom but I can't remember who.

Petra_70 wrote: »

The guy in the article looks like he is punching above his weight, and she looks fairly OK, but judging by this article, her personality is repugnant. If I were him, I would leave, and find someone who cares about him more than she does!

I too think the author comes across as a not very nice person.
That has nothing to do with the fact that she doesn't want sex with her husband - which she has every right to decide.

It's the way she writes about herself and what suits her - and let the devil take the the hindmost.

Gavin83

Person_one wrote: »

Is that only sex then?

There are loads of situations that leads to even very loving couples not having as much sex as they might have expected to have. Medical, social, psychological, logistical, etc. etc. Nobody has a god given right to get their end away on a regular basis.

Fair enough but then nobody has a god given right for their partner to stay with them either. About the time sex starts to disappear is about the time to move on IMO and find someone who actually does find you attractive.

This thread also sums up one of the reasons I don't wish to have kids.

I also don't think the problem people have with the article is her not wanting sex, it's more her attitude, which stinks.

Petra_70

Pollycat wrote: »

I was being kind. :whistle:
He looks like somebody from a sitcom but I can't remember who.

I too think the author comes across as a not very nice person.
That has nothing to do with the fact that she doesn't want sex with her husband - which she has every right to decide.

It's the way she writes about herself and what suits her - and let the devil take the the hindmost.

He reminds me of Big Keith from The Office.

Gavin83 wrote: »

Fair enough but then nobody has a god given right for their partner to stay with them either. About the time sex starts to disappear is about the time to move on IMO and find someone who actually does find you attractive.

This thread also sums up one of the reasons I don't wish to have kids.

I also don't think the problem people have with the article is her not wanting sex, it's more her attitude, which stinks.

That's fair comment Gavin, but by the same token, I reckon this woman would probably still have this ugly attitude towards her man even if they had not HAD kids.

Me and my husband have had 2, and we still find each other attractive.

So I don't think having - or not having kids comes into it really. In my opinion anyway.

Pollycat

Pollycat wrote: »

He looks like somebody from a sitcom but I can't remember who.

Gotcha!