I can just imagine her response:
Honey,
our problems started on our first honeymoon night. I went to the spa when you were out shopping, and there was this french girl there. She was a little goofy looking, big bulgy eyes, a bit of a swayback. Still, she was kind of sexy somehow......

I totally agree with the letter writer that you should indeed be "faithful" to the marriage, meaning be the same person before and after, and not treat a spouse like a project to be fixed. Marriage isn't an excuse to cut off the sex (and why do so many women?), stop cooking and cleaning, and let yourself go.

I feel no sympathy for the letter writer, though, because he himself said the only thing he wanted out of this woman was sex. He found her stupid, boring, and didn't value her opinions on any subject. Uhh, then don't marry her. Find someone who has not only a willing pussy, but is someone you do, in fact, enjoy actually talking to. Accept some responsibility for who you let into your life.

And Bikerken, you totally cracked me up.

"Never let your husband leave the house with a single drop of semen in his body. Trust me, if he is not dumping it at home, he is dumping it somewhere...

What a charming guy. She's well-quit of the asshole.

Accept some responsibility for who you let into your life.

Amen, sister!

I can't wait to read what Jeff and Jay R will say about this letter. /sarcasm

"I feel no sympathy for the letter writer, though, because he himself said the only thing he wanted out of this woman was sex. He found her stupid, boring, and didn't value her opinions on any subject. Uhh, then don't marry her."

Exactly. And if he finds sex so easy to get, why did he get married in order to have it? Everything he said about his wife may be true, but he is no prize either. Do you ever hear him admit that HE made a mistake, maybe by getting married at all? He takes no responsibility for his own decisions whatsoever - it's all HER fault. She doesn't sound like the only whiny toad in that couple.

Whether or not you find his candor tasteful, I don't see anyone disagreeing with him.

No, snakeman, I don't disagree with him. They sound like two people who should never have gotten married in the first place. I'm sure that both the wedding industry and the divorce industry are very thankful for couples like this, doing their part to keep those sectors of the economy going.

This guy is a clueless dolt who just got married because he was mindlessly following his dick around. (Which he is still doing.) He clearly does not love his wife, and maybe that is the reason she has lost interest in sex with him. But that just makes me wonder why SHE married HIM.

I'm glad my life isn't like theirs.

I agree with the LW that a marriage, based on many things including a sexual relationship, requires performance from both parties. Both parties must contribute to the relationship during marriage the same as promised pre-marriage.

If Husband always did the laundry before marriage it's assumed he won't stop after "I do". Ditto for her. Especially ditto for sex.

But, I will disagree that the onus of the failed marriage is on Wife in this situation. As was previously mentioned he was dumb enough to marry a woman who provided him with nothing except sexual gratification. He doesn't seem to have trouble getting it so why marry someone for it? Oh, I know. You don't need to use rubbers.

She sounds like a real turd. So does he. They probably deserve each other.

I don't think cheating is ever justified however one can define the causality to understand the cheating (she didn't put out is the reason, but it doesn't justify his behavior).

He needed to be upfront immediately - not go cheat on his (loser) wife on their honeymoon. If he was SO DISTRAUGHT he should have had the marriage annulled IMMEDIATELY. Cheating just isn't the solution to a shitty marriage (unless both parties agree to it, which clearly isn't the case in the letter). It took him three years to grow a set and get away from the cow. Again...they deserve each other.

"But, I will disagree that the onus of the failed marriage is on Wife in this situation." - Me

I need to rephrase: I will disagree that the onus of the failed marriage is *ONLY* on Wife in this situation.

I agree with PJo. They both contributed to this failed marriage. Maybe he changed after the "I do" as well? And maybe when he changed she changed? It's possible she was the only one who morphed into a nightmare but he was the one who married a doorknob.

Now there's a guy who truly hates women.
Is anyone surprised he ended up with a wife who went into withholding mode on their honeymoon?

Not disagreeing with the guy...he is right about not changing the package you represent yourself to be, but its not so much his candor that is distasteful. I somehow doubt he was so candid with his wife about what (little) he saw in her before the wedding, and in fact, it doesn't sound like he was all that candid with himself. Sexual intimacy is hugely important in a relationship, but for that to be the ONLY thing? I doubt he represented himself as signing up as a "life long fuck buddy, please don't talk". If they hadn't discussed such obvious things as sex, households chores, etc. BEFORE they sealed the deal, well they both screwed up.

I think its telling that their honeymoon conversations went: But I'm tired. But it's our honeymoon. Both comments surely sounded reasonable and obviously reasonable to the speaker, but to an outsider, they both sound pretty whiny.

I don't abide by "keying" a guy's car or other vindictive act at break-up as that implies convincing yourself its all the other guys fault and they deserve to be punished. This seems to be equivalent: Failure to take responsibility for his own part in the mistake.

"reasonable"..."reasonable". Sorry -- comments in between phone calls...forgot to re-read for clarity.

...and then he threw her in the fireplace.

this is hilarious, all of you trying to shift the blame back to this guy, and making excuses for a person who, as described, didn't bring anything to the relationship, not even sex. and yet she get's a pass? This is no different to saying, "my gender, right or wrong." Good for laughs, bad for policy...

I don't share the philosophical simplicity he has chosen for picking a mate, but that aside, I think there needed to be some communication between the two. Of course, the very test of the letter implies she knew exactly what she was doing. "training him". Sounds like she's a wilfull participant in her own demise?

"A guy can get sex without getting married. Even if you have to rent it on a nightly basis, it's probably cheaper than buying."
--Agreed. So then why do men get married? Probably not because of self-will alone.

A person can either rent, lease, or own. And nobody wants to own, but they do it anyway. I think marriages should have a three year lease. Only because it gives incentive to keep the attraction on both accounts, not let it idly fester as time passess on.

I agree its foolish to marry someone who only provides one thing. Nevertheless, in the context of LW's relationship, Wife basically defrauded LW. Buying a Ferrari may be a poor investment, but that doesn't preclude his right to complain when the Chevy Nova rolls up.

J.D. who in this entire thread has shifted blame to the guy? Everyone here has said that the wife sounds like a troll. But the guy was dumb enough to MARRY the troll, when he had no respect for her from the very beginning! In fact he only valued her for sex, which makes his decision to marry her extra dumb since (by his own questionable admission) he is getting plenty of that without having to get married for it.

And this comment of yours is about the dumbest thing I've seen all year: "So then why do men get married? Probably not because of self-will alone." So if men don't get married because of self-will alone, why DO they get married? Does the Tooth Fairy make them do it? Does someone slip them a date-rape drug and poof, they wake up married? (In the bathtub, with a kidney missing?)

The comments on this thread have not shifted blame to the guy, but no one is willing to absolve him of his own responsibility for his own crappy decision-making, either, which you seem to want to do. "My gender, right or wrong" indeed.

Feed not the troll, PJ, for behold, it is Jeff Daniels, who was banned once before, with a new ISP!! The joy.

Thanks, Flynne. Next think you know Chuck "The Memo Boy" Pelto will find a way back in.

I hate having to scroll past the Poo boys to get to the good stuff by Crid or Norman. I am kind of amazed that this site, of all places, seems to have attracted such an annoying tribe of Angry Little Men. We make FUN of shrill, whiny feminists around here, right before we roast them for breakfast! Amy sticks up for men over and over, on every issue from sex to child visitation agreements and alimony. She doesn't even let the fat chicks off the hook.

Where do these 'american women suck' cultists come crawling out of the woodwork from?

*Where do these 'american women suck' cultists come crawling out of the woodwork from?*

Just a guess, but maybe from here?

http://www.blossoms.com/

Pirate Jo, they come from the same place that LW came from - even if he's fake, the story itself and its underlying themes came from someone's mind.

There are relatively few people out there who view themselves as having nothing to offer in terms of conversation, intellectual stimulation, etc. Those who do are either of extremely low self-esteem and thus likely to do anything to hold onto a mate - including nonstop sex - or are possessed of a non-intellectual shrewdness allowing them to realize that they need to maximize their beauty and sex appeal - including having lots of sex - to hold onto a mate. Everyone else thinks they have a lot to offer, and when someone agrees to marry them, unless that person constantly tells them how stupid they are, they're going to assume that the offer of marriage equates a high valuation of their intellect and emotional contribution. The LW's wife is clearly one of these people.

Basically, the LW married a woman who, by his own admission, is stupid and boring, and then was shocked, SHOCKED when she turned out to be a bad mate. Does that excuse her bait and switch? No. Likewise, if I marry a man who starts beating me unprovoked, nothing would excuse that either...but if he had shown the classic signs of an abuser during the relationship and I had ignored them because I wanted to be married THAT badly, I'd need to own up to my role in the situation.

If you marry someone you consider stupid, you're going to have a bad marriage. Note: This is not the same thing as marrying someone who is not just like you intellectually. Plumbers and Ph.Ds can have perfectly happy lives together. But if you marry someone you don't find *interesting*, how do you expect to sustain a happy marriage over decades?

There are smart, kind single women out there. It may take longer to find them than it does to find dumb, outwardly super-accommodating women, just as it may take longer to find smart, kind men than it does losers, but they exist. The LW - if he exists - could have held out for a smart, kind woman. Instead, he picked a stupid, boring woman who apparently displayed her lack of empathy in all other areas besides sex before they got married. Why was he surprised at all that she didn't care about his needs after they got hitched? And he can divorce her, but as long as he keeps looking for stupid women as marriage partners, he's going to be unhappy.

No one acts EXACTLY the same after 20 years of marriage as they did before, because years and life events (having kids, parents dying, moving to new places, moving up in the corporate hierarchy, switching careers) change people. Most men I know aren't quite as inclined to send flowers et all after they get married as before. Women are more comfortable hanging their pantyhose up in the bathroom. But if you pick someone with a sterling character, you're maximizing the possibility that your partner will change in ways that you *enjoy*, and that the two of you will grow *together*. If you try to take a short-cut here, you more or less deserve what you get.

I have to agree with most of the posts here that this guy was not on the right track to begin with. The one sentence he had in that letter about, "Getting married to have sex" threw up a flag for me. He kinda showed his cards a bit there. You don't marry somebody just because Mr. Happy likes cuddling up with them. Jesus Keerist, what was he thinking? From his letter, it seems he never really expresses even likeing his wife other than for sex before they got married, then, because she gets a case of the shaved icebox, he realizes how much he doesn't even like her at all. Hmmmmm. Dudes got issues. No consoling, no talking it out, giving it a little time, he went straight to the screwing around during the honeymoon. A lot of women get a little distracted on their honeymoon. That's when I got married, we went to a remote cabin in northern Michigan far far away from anything like civilation. There was NOTHING to do. Hmmmm.

what Marion said.

first, I must pre-emptively apologize to flynne for eliminating her joy: i don't know who jeff daniels is (presumably not the actor). I've been lurking here for a couple weeks now. I've used j.d. before, on here, and other blogs (ex, theagitator.com). No that's not my e-mail address, and yes, I would probably have a different ISP than jeff daniels, being that I am not he. SO, just nip that in the bud for starters. Or not, you can surely believe what you want. (I do notice your excitement of a returning banned ex-commenter, but, i cannot claim what I have not earned). So yes, sorry to disappoint.

Second, I posed the "why do men get married" question in the rhetorical sense, obviously. I think it's an open-ended question, and was hoping to generate some more discussion. So I'll elaborate on what I believe: that the reason men marry is not out of pure self-will, but from a number of other pressuring factors, not limited to family, the girlfriend herself, money, and so forth: I do point my finger at religion the most. I think it is the number one reason why men get married: because religion compells them to do so. Curiously, it is the one thing that keeps both dissatisfied men AND women from getting out of relationships. Even abusive ones. Or unsatisfying ones.

I also come from the viewpoint that, if marriage never existed, no person today would say, "I want to be with one person for the rest of my life, and I want to do so by the consent of the government". Rather, I adhere to the "say i love you and live up to it" mentality.

I say you've shifted the blame because you attack his reason to get married to this woman, which while it may be disagreeable, is hardly a basis for blaming the guy. Stupid yes (we agree on this, yes), but clearly his mind was set on what he wanted. This is no different than what a golddigger does. But when the funds dry up, are you to suggest that she and her ambitions should be chained to that one person? (I like the idea of wanting a ferrari and getting a nova -- marriage is a contract...right? Thinking Cardozo all of a sudden)

And he, like a golddigger that marries an unlucky investor, got burned. Assume, for a moment, that he was looking for a trophy wife. And that's all the guy wanted. Disagreeable? Sure. But the woman once beautiful who changes her position into a very unkempt person is an understandable disappointment to the guy. Marion makes a very reasonable point in the alternative: where one goes beyond what is expected of them to the detriment of the other (ie, spousal abuse). The door swings both ways, and here's one example, of very very few, that comes from the position of a male.

To the text of the letter, I think his point of articulating her lack of doing anything is more of a final nail in an already sealed coffin. Like he said, he wanted sex, and sex he did not get. If his motive to write the letter was based on that, I think it would have been written completely different.

(I do notice your excitement of a returning banned ex-commenter, but, i cannot claim what I have not earned). So yes, sorry to disappoint.

You shouldn't assume what you don't know; I just forgot the /sarcasm tag. I cannot claim to be disappointed that you are not he.

On the other hand, you at least seem to be a little less troll-like, at the moment, than the previous poster with the same initials that I mentioned before. Pardon me for being rash.

The blame is being shifted from the woman only to being shared, not to being the guy's fault. As most here suggest...they both appear to be idiots.

I can't imagine agreeing to tie myself to a man who only wanted me for sex (well, maybe in some fantasy role-playing, but I digress). If she knew her role as "seminal receptacle" before she agreed to the marriage, she could have been blamed for not holding up her end of the bargain. She clearly didn't know she was only a sex object to him. She asked to bring her family on the honeymoon...does it sound like she was planning a week of hot sex? Was she hoping that having grandma along would spice things up? Maybe she believed him when he spouted the whole love, honor, respect stuff at the wedding. I agree, she failed to do her part in that, but he didn't exactly live up to his side.

You reaps whats you sow.

As to why men marry...this sounds like BS feminist rhetoric about how men keep them down, turned on its ear. If the men aren't in charge and the women aren't, who the hell is this society that's keeping us down? It's OK though...the government can surely fix it for us.

Thank you for elaborating, J.D. I actually agree with a lot of what you said. This is interesting:

"So I'll elaborate on what I believe: that the reason men marry is not out of pure self-will, but from a number of other pressuring factors, not limited to family, the girlfriend herself, money, and so forth: I do point my finger at religion the most."

I would say that these are a lot of the same reasons why women marry. And maybe people need a little Ayn Rand injection, or something. People need to figure out that you get a life, ONE life, and it doesn't belong to your family, your girlfriend, money, or religion. It belongs to YOU, and if you screw it up, YOU are going to be the one left with the consequences. The guy writing this letter chose his girlfriend, chose his religion, chose whatever. You have pointed out that a lot of factors put pressure on people, but people have to be adults and choose what they will be pressured by. If they are just going to sit and let life "happen" to them from the passenger seat, well that itself is a choice, but they really don't have much room to complain.

I detest religion as much as anyone here. I was brought up in a relatively fundie household where all that stuff was crammed down my throat, but you know what I did? I said eff off, and I'm still single at the age of 38, financially independent, and have a lovely boyfriend. I didn't do what was expected of me, but I did what made me happy, and it didn't hurt anyone else. So why can't this guy (and maybe his wife, for that matter) just grow the hell up and take some ownership? I really can't stand to listen to people whine about lying in beds of their own making.

Bikerken's comments were spot-on, by the way.

Like he said, he wanted sex, and sex he did not get.

The thing is, if you marry a person for one thing and one thing alone and totally ignore the rest of that person's character, you're going to get screwed, and not in a good way. A woman who marries a man who she doesn't otherwise care for because he's handsome or rich is likely to be unhappy. A man who marries a woman who he doesn't otherwise care for because she's beautiful/sexy or rich is likely to be unhappy. (He who marries for money earns it.) This guy married a woman who, by his own estimation, is stupid, thoughtless, and undeveloped of personality. Such people will tend to do MANY things you don't want after marriage. In this case, her refusal happened to center around sex. If you want someone to behave in a certain way after marriage, then limit your search to people who you consider to be trustworthy and of at least marginal intelligence and compassion. This guy is lucky that his wife didn't drain his bank account and/or try to poison him. When you throw character out the window in your search for a spouse, bad things happen.

I'm not questioning someone prioritizing frequent, passionate sex in choosing a marriage partner over all else. Hell, I've defended a guy on this site who wanted to dump his otherwise perfectly good girlfriend because her boobs were too small. Every marriage is different. I'm criticizing the approach this guy took to doing so - i.e. marrying a woman who to him had NO redeeming value outside of bed. He married a jerk and then was surprised when she acted like a jerk *to him*. Classic mistake.

Amy,

I haven't read the other comments yet, but I have to say, even though many women may criticize you for doing so, publicizing the content of this letter is the best thing you could do for any woman who has some hope of a permanent, monogamous relationship with a man.

How did you get to be such a cool chick? How did you avoid ingesting the feminist kool-aid? Is it just that you're smart?

Well, I have to admit that this letter is very entertaining, and equally so the comments.
With this apparently being read publicly on the radio, and the recent batshit nuts lady in NYC trashing her husband via you tube, I have one thought and also once suggestion.

My thought is that while the LW is growing some balls, why doesn't he grow them big enough to just confront his wife face to face?

My suggestion is, that he hook up with the blonde golddigger you tube gal in NYC that actually claimed her older, richer husband didn't have enough sex with her?

This would be a win-win for all of us, in that two really whiny people could get together and bone each other instead of complaining to the world that they got a raw deal in their marriage.

Flynne,

I don't post here that often, so I don't know whether to take your reference to me above as a compliment or as an insult. If it's the latter, that's ok.

BTW, the wife is a controlling bitch, but the guy is worse, IMO. He should have divorced her IMMEDIATELY. Infidelity is wrong. Her sexual non-fidelity does not justify his infidelity. The right thing to do is wait until after the divorce to start enjoying the ample supply of "low-hanging fruit" out there.

P.S., You may think you know me. I've been happily married for 28 years to my HS sweetheart, and the preservation and strengthening of married relationships is my primary concern. Feminism tends to erode relationships, demonize men, and infantilize women, and so I oppose it. Go ahead and assume I'm a He-Man Woman-Hater. That way, you won't have to do any real thinking.

Take care, now.

so, I'll be the contrarian... I read it as a half truth joke. Potentially real, but likely an aggregate of a buncha friends experiences, all pulled together to push it to extreme. If it's real, idiotboy, will lose everything he ever had to the divorce. Obviously he didn't do his homework about gettin' hitched. They are certainly a mismatch if true, but like a lot of things, you just have to figure out who has traits you like, and traits you can deal with. They should get awayfrom each other so they can find that.

The other thing is "dude, be happy she's witholding. if she gets knocked up, she'll own you for a very long time..."

All the other things to say, yeah, I don't think it's real. How foolish would it be to only think about that 1/1000% of life in the sack? You gotta live with them all the time. There is a lot of life that is other things. On the issue of spouses and Sig others changing... that's a whole other kettle of fish.

people don't always show you everything... even worse, is when you are the type who does show everything, sometimes you forget, not everyone does. This is how the person who you hiked with, went to movies with, spent sundays reading lazily in the sun with... tells you she hates all those things AFTER you marry her.

:shrug: if you want peace, then live alone.

Nope, Jay R, just curious with a tad o' dread, based on other stuff you've written before. I do agree that some feminists carry feminism to extremes, but that the core of feminism, the one that is about equal pay for equal work, should be valid. Also treating others with the same respect that you yourself would want, but that's pretty much universal.

That said, when marion posted this: A woman who marries a man who she doesn't otherwise care for because he's handsome or rich is likely to be unhappy. A man who marries a woman who he doesn't otherwise care for because she's beautiful/sexy or rich is likely to be unhappy. , it kind of hit a nerve with me. I don't think any one person is responsible for another person's happiness. That has to come from oneself. If you're not happy with yourself, how can you expect to be happy with someone else, or to even "make" the other person happy? You're just setting your partner (and yourself) up for a big disappointment.

Intrigued at you bringing up Ayn Rand. Only becuase I tried to avoid bringing it up on grounds that the mere mention of her name gets all sorts of wild and...ahem . . . irrational reactions.

In reflection, I think his divorce is better for both parties involved. Would it be too much to say that him sleeping with another woman right after thier wedding was an efficient breach? I noticed some discussion of infidelity, and I think it's a hard argument to make that either the woman or man cannot sleep with anyone else until a judge signs off on the last paper. Not only because it forces reliance on the government, and not only because it's a long, drawn-out process... but because it's out-of-step with individual needs. This brings me to one interesting point I have yet to understand about this guy, and probably the only one I can't seem to find an answer for: If he was already sleeping with other women, why was it necessary for him to sleep with his wife through that time period? There are lots of problems with this, and I think it's ultimately the one place he went really, really wrong. (and perhaps, the argument can be made that he did this too quickly without a stronger pattern indicating this, even though the pattern did develop nonetheless).

To the person who said that people are not the same after 20 years of marriage; i agree. but i think this is an excellent point against marriage itself. To further a previous analogy: one doesn't buy a ferrari and expect to find a chevy nova the next day. nor do they expect a ferrari to transform into one after 20 years. And would you buy the ferrari if it did?

hmmm

The guy took the time to write a letter to Leykis. Not call while stuck in traffic on the 10, but actually get home, think about Tom again, and write him. Just saying.

...but did you continue: "nor should a woman purchase a pair of Seven's, only to find out later they've turned into Wranglers." --?

Amy, I remember that one. Didn't that woman spout off something about how proud she was of herself for having "accepted her new body"?

Ugh.

Anyway - I have a question for the masses. Does this post-wedding abstinence really happen? Or is this just a badly-perpetuated myth? I suppose I could see it happen for people who marry when young or inexperienced, or for new parents, but LW's story seems just too ridiculous to believe. Nonstop sex halted by marriage? I've never been married, but have been in several long-term relationships and lack of sex has never been an issue. Am I being naive here?

I really have to get up earlier.

Pirate Jo, your comment about taking responsibility for your ONE life is exactly what I would have said.

That guy has a whole lot of bitter for something that he shares equal responsibility for. Glad you finally grew some balls, dude, too bad you haven't figured out exactly how they're supposed to operate yet. What kind of guy feels the need to utterly humiliate someone, dumb bitch or no, to reclaim his manhood?

Thank whomever that these two didn't reproduce. Thinking about what kind of spawn they would have failed to raise makes me shudder.

When I was a kid growing up in Michigan, I noticed a trend in young married women there. They would usually be nice looking slim long hair willowy babes in a pair of jeans and a halter when they got married. Shortly after the wedding, usually after the first kid, the ass started to spread, boobs disappeared, and for some reason, denim gave way to polyester, and the hair got cropped up to the collar and curled like a poodle. In about five years she was a cookie cutter version of her mother. And the two of them would spend most of their time together talking about their husbands like they were pets. I used to call it the poodle cut as a matter of fact. When we would be talking about guys we knew who got married, one idication of how things were going was, "She's already got the poodle cut man." Then you know. That poor guy is going to have all the sex he wants for the rest of his life, as long as he doesn't get caught stealing in Iran. You'd seem them all at the bowling alley with that thousand mile stare on their face.

They married what I call, "The Liquid Monster". The Liquid Monster was a sci-fi horror flick that was made sometime in the 50's at the hight of the monster flick era. It was essentially some puddle that looked like syrup that would just move down the sidewalk or up a wall then move across a ceiling, then when someone was standing in it or step under it, it would drip down on them or stick to them and start absorbing all of the liquids out of their body and leave a dried up shriveled gruesome looking corpse. It was a great movie. But these days, I use the term Liquid Monster for women who marry a man and just suck the fucking life right out of him. You run into these guys on the street and they have that, "please kill me" look you saw on those people stuck to the wall in Aliens. I have a friend that married one of these monsters. We used to call him B.D. for Big Dave. Now when we say B.D. it means 'before Diane'. Cause he's just pretty much occupying a skin suit till it shrivels up.

I'm not saying the woman in the letter is like that, it just crossed my mind.

snakeman -- of 5 weddings I've attended in the past two years (I guess 35-40 is when the second round begins?), three of those couples are already complaining that married life is more difficult than what they expected, and they all lived together before hand. There have been "jokes" about less sex.

I don't believe anyone is intentionally withholding anything. However, from the little I've heard, the problems are two fold.

First, these couples didn't have a very good conversation about what the change in status meant to them. Hard to live up to or agree to any expectations if you don't know what they are. People get unhappy and the relationship losses its fun.

Second, some of its just timing. Assuming marriage occurs after everyone is feeling pretty secure with their partner, if you forget to keep an eye on it, the gradual "taking each other for granted" stuff builds to resentment.

Let me say: I get what the guy, in brief, is saying. If you represent yourself as one kind of person pre-marriage, continue to do so post-marriage or suffer the consequences. It's one of those, 'Duh, no shit' common sense type deals that people just plain forget about. Somehow.

Otherwise, I read that letter thinking, "Man, this is like rheum mocking snot."

snakeman99: For a short while after I got married, the sex stopped. It was a mutual thing-- There was a lot for the two of us to adjust to (moving out, changing jobs, the wedding itself, him going back to school, etcetera). Once things settled down the sex came back. It did turn out to be a little less than we'd both expected, but not to our complete dismay since when we do have sex it's damn good (I only say it because he does and I agree) and, nat'ch, we married each other for more than just it alone.

I haven't read the other comments yet, but I have to say, even though many women may criticize you for doing so, publicizing the content of this letter is the best thing you could do for any woman who has some hope of a permanent, monogamous relationship with a man. (Jay R)

He may be gone now, but this comment struck me as really odd given Jay R's later claims. The best thing a woman needs to know about the man she marries is he is only interested in her for sex? Does his wife of 28 years know that? Given that Jay R claims "preservation and strengthening of married relationships is (his) primary concern", I'm not sure this letter is a good advertisement.

Give you the benefit of the doubt Jay R and presume the good part of this letter is that it points out men need sex to continue as part of the relationship deal...but perhaps you can see why you're labelled from time to time by not rationalizing your thoughts. You want well articulated thoughts? You start.

I'm assuming the LW and at least some men know that women get pleasure from sex too, so they would be motivated to have it because of this?

The way he was talking, he was acting like his wife was some prostitute he just purchased.

With the guys I've been with, they've been the happiest when I've had my orgasms (which they didn't 'give' me, BTW, they were the result of a team effort). I guess that falls under the validation part.

I'm also not buying the LWs story of how easy it is to get laid-it sounds more like the plot of a porno than something that happens in real life to real guys. Feedback, guys?

On the face, it's just that easy. But for a man, it takes time, practice, and discipline to get to that point. It's not whether the women are easy: they're not. It's whether the man has the right information and application of knowledge of the code to unpick the lock. If I may use a metaphor.....

Does it sound like a plot to a porno? Sure. But that's how the world presents itself. I've number-closed on girls without ever saying a word. And then the stories get really interesting....

I was imagining what the wife might have written, just for kicks, and it went something like this:

It all started on the honeymoon. We went to the beach and after you finished eye-fucking half the female population there, you wanted to have sex. Alright, I'll go along with this, albeit reluctantly. Not exactly my fantasy of newlywed bliss, but whatever. So, we get back to the room and you pounce. Not a second of foreplay, no kisses, no touching, just straight at it. Alright, fine. I'm not an icicle, so after a few minutes of you pounding away, I start to warm up anyway, and begin to get into it. Then, you stiffen, groan, roll over and proceed to snore. Wow, the romance is overwhelming.

What happened to all the care and attention you used to lavish on me, before we were married? You used to know where the clitoris was located, and enthusiastically used that knowledge while I was "effing you six ways from Sunday". Then, we got married, and instead of the long, passionate sex sessions, I just get a few minutes of jack-rabbit humping and you're done. And when my enthusiasm waned, you just started doing the staff. A week after we were married. Wow, that was hot. Knowing that you did that fish-eyed, swaybacked receptionist, I started eyeing the poolboy. He more than made up for this lackluster honeymoon. At least he still knows how to please a woman. Then, back home, when you proceeded to whore your way through the PTA, I was still, get this, doing the poolboy. Those PTA ladies might enjoy the attention, and pretend they're enjoying your boring, missionary humping. They can have you. And those long lunches, those shopping sprees, yeah, that was for my boytoy. Seeing him prance around in his new, expensive clothes that you paid for, that was such a turn-on.

Too bad Tom would never read something like that. Lucky for me, that's just my imagination and my life isn't nearly that depressing. From his letter, though, with his 10-minute visit to some woman, I wouldn't be surprised if that rings true for the wife.

Snakeman99,

I've always assumed the "no sex after marriage" was a joke. I've been married twice. The first marriage lasted twelve years, and though the frequency gradually decreased, we were still managing 2-3 times a week until the day he died. It would have been more, but we had crazy commutes, and were just plain tired. Weekends rocked though.

My second marriage is going on four years now. With the exception of a couple of months I was on "pelvic rest" while pregnant, and the few weeks of recovery after C-section, we're going strong. I will admit that with 2 kids under 3 years old, it's not as often as we'd like - only about twice a week right now, damn it - but it's sure not because I, or he, aren't willing.

I suppose there are couples out there for whom this is a problem, but apparently all my friends are horndogs. Only one has complained about a serious lack of sex, and she finally ditched his frigid ass.

This reminds me of an old joke I saw once. At a wedding the bride is standing around with all her bridesmaids, and the groom is standing around with all his men, in separate corners. The bridegroom is saying, "Can you believe it? Now I'll get all the blowjobs I want!" And the bride is saying to her gals, "Can you believe it? Now I'll never have to give him a blowjob again!"

Women DO quit doing things after the wedding that we might not have enjoyed as much when we were courting. Men do, too. They quit taking you to the mall and holding your purse while you try clothes on, you quit lipping his piece, it escalates. Maybe we should quit getting married to people for things we could provide for ourselves, and marry people where there is a true joining of hearts and souls. People we love and respect.

These two are both boneheads. He spent $10,000 on a honeymooon with a woman he didn't KNOW was a bad conversationalist? She married him for his
money, and she's sensing his disinterest, so now she wants a baby. Neither of them should be breeding.

"Maybe we should quit getting married to people for things we could provide for ourselves," If I could lip my own piece I'd not only not get married but I'd never leave the freaking house :) Sorry had to, to tempting.

As the happily married husband of a charming lady who exhibits none of the qualities this mans soon to be ex ball and chain has, I have to comment.
I have dated this woman you are married too. A couple of times (she has lots of sisters). In addition to the sexual starvation, in my case they were also the ones insisting on marriage asap because "things would be better if we were married." I was certainly a fool far too long in those cases, but I didn't buy the "Sure, I'm an ice princess now, but I'll be a nympho when I've got you stuffed and mounted."
Still, had I layed out both positions in a forum like this, I'll bet more than one commenter would have taken her part - "well yes, she wants you to marry her - she doesn't just want to be your SEX OBJECT - marry her, pig." Then, if I had, and come to the situation this man was in, how many of those same letter writers would say "you are the idiot who married her."
A person with an argument is no match for a person with an experience, and I'd hazard a guess many a man shares this mans experience. Pop culture acknowledges this is jokes about wedding cake killing a womans sex drive, cliches about men "sleeping on the couch tonight," etc.
I don't know the particulars here - maybe this guy has culpability in this situation. Maybe he has a lot. But if he does, then doesn't it stand to reason she's the idiot for marrying him? Beyond that, let this be yet another lesson most women will ignore - the sexual revolution is over, everybody lost, and nobody lost more than women. Men just don't have to work nearly as hard or put up with nearly as much as they used to for the sake of sex. If a woman is still counting on that for power, shes on mighty shaky ground.
Equality. Deal with it.

So, he cheats on the honeymoon, and thinks she doesn't know (sorry, no one is that stupid, not even a cow). Then, when she tries to tell him what she likes in bed, he gets anygry at the implication that he's not some born sex-god, and stops trying? What a prize! I'd love to marry him and do him every day. Oh, and then cook and clean! What fun!!

Open letter to husbands who aren't getting any:

If you made it fun for US, you would!! But something about slaving all day cleaning up after your lazy-ass makes me less than enthusuastic for getting slammed so that you can sleep better. And yeah, there are plenty of men (generally younger!) who are more than willing to service those "fat lazy cows" you feel so superior for cheating on. Trust me.