Makes me wonder, did their non "high-frequency sex" life mean that she only had sex for the purpose of having children? If she's not even trying to take the child out of the bed (he didn't say that the child kept coming back into the bedroom), then she's likely uninterested in having sex and uses the children as an excuse.

Dude, get a job that pays the bills and nothing more and gives you plenty of free time, because no matter what you do she is going to leave you.

Amys advice about talking to your wife is sound, but my bet is it wont matter, I've had plenty of friends in the same position as you - every one of the divorced.

Look ahead and set your self up so that when you do get divorced you arent working a job where you make enough for her to afford keeping the house while you move out, and start keeping a log which details that when you are not working the time you spend taking care of the kids is enough to rival the time she does so you wont automatically get screwed out of custody.

This is an occasion where I'd have to agree with both Miss Alkon and lujlp.

My third would sometimes crawl into bed, but our youngest was terrible about it. We'd put her to bed and around four in the morning, I'd feel ice cold feet pressing against my back. We finally got her to stay the night in her bed. Purely coincidentally, my wife chose to stop communicating with me about the same time.

I agree with lujlp; talk to your wife. If she doesn't work with you to solve the problem, you may as well end the marriage sooner than later and don't play the nice guy; get joint custody.

I'd say this is another perfect example of a woman who got what she wanted (her kids) and she's just keeping you around to finance her lifestyle choices.

Call me old-fashioned, but I don't believe there is ever a reason a kid has to be in your bed. A crib in the room when they're tiny, perhaps, but after that - get in your own bed and stay there, kid.

Ridiculous.

Tell the LW to get his 6 year old a waterbed. After co-sleeping for years, going solo is a chilly deal. Nobody like a cold, lonely bed. Make the transition easier for everyone. Warm waterbed helps if the younguns get growing pains, too.

It worked a charm when my boy needed to be booted from the big bed into his own.

If your wife is not having sex with you, it is because your wife does not want to have sex with you. The kids or whatever are simply the excuse.

Talk about the lack of sex once or twice in a frank, forthright, no yelling manner. Then she either comes around and gets back into monogamous marriage mode (meaning you get laid) or you have the guilt-free option of either finding some on the side (and staying mum) or plotting the end of the marriage on as good a terms as you can.

Check with a divorce lawyer on what planning steps you should take.

But buddy, don't spend the next twenty years of your life wishing you had a wife who would have sex with you. I know guys who went that route. Awful, awful life.

LW, the core problem here can be summed up in your own words:

she refuses to even discuss it

It's not that she has some real belief that your daughter should be in your bed, it's that she made the decision and won't even talk about it with you. When you try to talk to her about it, frame it that way: it's not her parenting decision that's really the problem, it's that it was a unilateral decision that affects both of you and may have a detrimental effect on your child. I agree that, as she hasn't given you a reason why the kid needs to be in your bed, she's using your daughter as a tiny, squirmy chastity belt.

Considering she's still breastfeeding the youngest, I'm assuming it hasn't been terribly long since your wife had the baby. Did the six-year-old security blanket exist before the new baby, or is this a recent development? If it's the latter (and perhaps even if it's the former), maybe your wife has some form of PND or hormone fluctuation or simply isn't feeling particularly sexual anymore and doesn't want to tell you flat out. It's worth asking if she can articulate the reasons behind the I-don't-want-to-have-sex-but-I-don't-want-to-talk-about-it policy, because it might be something you and she can work on together.

it's not her parenting decision that's really the problem, it's that it was a unilateral decision that affects both of you and may have a detrimental effect on your child.

That not going to go over well, she'll see it as an attack on her MOTHERHOOD. 'How dare he suggest that I dont know what is best for "MY" child'

Hopefully I'm wrong, I'm not a fan of divorce when there are kids involved - personaly even if parents are miserable I think they have a duty to stay together for the kids. Your commitment to your kids is greater then your commitment to eachother. But if this does wind up going down the road I think it is you'll have more meaningful access to you children and a better relationship with them if they dont grow up seeing their mother treating you like an indentured servent who presence she mearly tolerates as a means to an end.

As I said I hope I'm wrong, divorce is hell on kids, but sometimes staying together might be worse. Fucked up thing is you'll never know which was the better option(baring cases involving abuse).

Either way if you stay and nothing changes or if you go your kids will be screwed up one way or another. The best option is for your kids is for you two to work things out - and that depends on her wanting to work things out, which according to your letter seems a very remote posibility.

Not every mother is this way. I had my babies in bed with me only while they were very tiny, then it was the crib for them, for the entire night, and in their own womb, ...er... i mean, room.

I disagree about having to buy a child an expensive bed just so they will want to sleep in their own room. You shouldn't have to buy children anything special to have them obey your rules. If we are talking cold winter nights here, invest in a good set of flannel sheets.

It is a matter of commitment, care, and consistency, ensuring you are not giving double messages to the children, by saying "no" don't come to the parental bed, and then letting them when they are standing there whining at 4am.

Stick to your guns, be consistent, set the tone from a very early age, and do not let the "inmates run the asylum".

As for the poor husband with no sex, i agree with luj that he should have "the talk" with wifey and set down rules for her to live up to, starting with honouring the marriage vows. Included in those vows was a promise to "love", which is not just an abstract notion... it is a physical act too. Some people just don't get it.

Technically I never suggest he talk with the wife; That was Amy.

I suggested he take steps when, in my opinion , the talk doesnt work out

she'll see it as an attack on her MOTHERHOOD

Yeah, that's the tricky part. Now that I've thought about it more, it may be best not to even frame it as "you made a decision without me," at least at first. Probably a better idea to stick with trying to find out why this is going on and if she's amenable to trying to work on it together, maybe with a little "It hurts that you don't want to even talk to me about it." If that works out okay, then move on to why it's not good to make unilateral parenting decisions. But, LW, you should be prepared for her to be resistant, so don't get angry or defensive and reinforce her decision to exclude you. Stay as calm and rational as you can while still being honest about what you're going through. Definitely say you want to understand what she's going through.

Well it's a mean idea but the situation may warrent it. Sabotage the sleeping arrangement. Well you left the bed so you wouldn't get a foot in the face, hmmm possibility that the wife pushed said foot.
Expouse to the kid the joys of sleeping on their own, if they don't go for it, give the kid chocolate before bedtime, a week with a hyper active kid in bed, may wake Mom up.

My first thought upon reading this was to wonder if the wife has post-partum depression, given that she is shutting down communication on important issues with her spouse. But I also wonder if she's overwhelmed and exhausted from breastfeeding (maybe even around the clock) and having to take care of two children at once. Does the LW help out with the children and make sure the wife is able to get some time to herself? It's really hard to feel in the mood for sex when you are exhausted, unbathed, and possibly depressed.

My husband and I co-sleep with our toddler. (My husband and I also have a healthy sex life. We have other rooms in our house; co-sleeping doesn't have to interfere with sex.) This arrangement works well for us as a family, and when we decide it's time to transition away from co-sleeping, we have a plan. But we decided it together. LW, your wife shouldn't just decide on her own that your six-year-old will stay there while you feel you have no place in your own bed. That's not a healthy arrangement for your family. Co-sleeping shouldn't displace parents.

I'd recommend the LW looking at child psychologist Dr. Laura Markham's work on ahaparenting.com. She has great practical ideas on child-related topics for different ages. I've seen stuff on her site about setting limits, siblings, and transitioning from co-sleeping that might be useful for the LW.

There's one simple question that the LW should be asking his wife here - "So, *when* will the 6 year old be put in her own bed?"

No long-winded "please can we talk about this" etc, just a simple straightforward question and wait for an answer. Don't be aggressive or upset, just calmly ask and shut up. Silence works wonders when people aren't communicating. As long as you keep talking, they don't have to. If she still won't say or walks off - well that answers your question about your relationship I guess.

It's not a nice technique because it can be very confronting (I usually reserve it for recalcitrant bank tellers or co-workers, not partners) but if she won't discuss it any other way what else can you do?

Of course, that still won't solve the ongoing problem. But it might break things open a bit.

We were lucky. At four months, our baby started waking up at 4 am and making a lot of playful noise. So we were united in the decision of putting her in her own room. We always put her down in her room. Sometimes if she wakes up and can't go back to sleep quickly, I bring her into our bed to finish the night.

She's not 6. She's 10. Months, that is.

I can see letting a 6-year-old join you if they've had a nightmare or something. But I can't see them -starting out- in your bed.

A few things...

1) Your wife is dead tired. There's a new baby and a new kid. This may not be the best time to start a difficult bed-weaning process. Maybe wait a couple months.
2) She may be more ok with having the kid sleep in her own room if there's the option of bringing her back in the middle of the night. If the kid spends the first half of the night in her own room, you can have sex then.
3) Dr. Sears recommends a gradual transition, first putting the kid in their own bed in your room, then moving it to their room. Have you tried that? You might even be able to have sex if the kid is asleep in their own bed even if they're in the same room. Hell, that's how it was done for most of history.
4) Make a big fuss out of the bed. Have you bought the kid a new bed yet? If you haven't, let the kid be involved in picking it out, picking out sheets, etc. Talk up the big kid bed. My parents did that when they transitioned me out of a crib to a big bed. I was very excited. I still remember the sheets with rainbows and butterflies on them.
5) Make lots of playdates with kids who have their own rooms. This is a situation where peer pressure might be good.

We always put her down in her room.

For some reason I always flinch at the expression "put her down". Oh, that's right, I have cats instead of kids. Nuff said.

"If your wife is not having sex with you, it is because your wife does not want to have sex with you. The kids or whatever are simply the excuse."

Yep. I know someone whose wife was still bringing the kids into their bed at ages 10 and 11. Or she would go to the kids' room to "sit with them until they fall asleep" and fall asleep in their rooms. If he protested she acted like he was trying to prevent her from being a good mother. She also refused to take any trips alone with him, claiming it was too selfish to spend money on vacations that didn't include the children and too selfish to leave them with relatives for a few days.

The advice was as good as possible, Amy. However, I don't believe for a second it's going to work. I'm not a fan of divorce, either, but it's splitsville for this couple.

Try secretly getting yourself fixed, then tell her you'd like to try for more kids. :)

Seriously, I think Nicole's advice was good. This woman has a baby, and she's probably worried about the older child feeling left out. There's also a whole earth-mother contingent that pushes the concept of a "family bed". I'll bet this is big in the wife's social circle.

Find out who/what is influencing this parenting model, and get her some new influences and reading material. Introduce her to some older moms, who've grown past this silliness (and can prove their kids have miraculously turned out ok without sleeping with mom and dad).

If that doesn't work, follow Luj's advice.

Children do not belong in the marital bed, period. This couple is in for a difficult ride bc once the kid is used to having her way on this issue, she is going to fight like hell to keep it. The new baby is only going to make the situation worse.

All that being said, the scorn being heaped upon this woman is unbelievable. As mothers, we make mistakes that is true, but it is going to be really hard to change this sleeping arrangement. LW doesn't say what he has offered to do help the transition. As the mother of new baby, maybe she doesn't feel like she has the energy to fight a screaming, crying six year old and a sexually frustrated husband. Trust me, he is the path of least resistance right now.

LW, talk to her wo the kids around to disturb you. Tell her you will work with her to break the cycle. This is going to be hard for both of you, but rather than assume your still relatively young marriage is over, try to work it out. This is what the vows mean when say for better or worse. This is the worse. Get to work and fix it. Marriage is not disposable and neither is the future of your children. Don't listen to the bitter women haters out here who tell you to shrug your shoulders and walk away. You made a commitment, now keep it.

Good God. What sane woman WANTS to sleep with a six year old? Seriously!

Anyone read Ayelet Waldman's essay in NYT about how she loved her husband more than her children? She got absolutely crucified for saying that.

If this woman wants to be a single mom, she's on the right track. She may as well pin a sign on her husband's back that says CHEAT WITH ME. Maybe he could buy her a copy of Little Children.

"I'd say this is another perfect example of a woman who got what she wanted (her kids) and she's just keeping you around to finance her lifestyle choices."

Possible, as I agree that this occurs. Conversely, the last such situation I was privy to, similar to this, was largely because the wife got wheedled into having a baby she didn't want yet because her husband's biological clock was ticking. In that case, I have no sympathy for him - but that's probably more because he had an affair with a woman his wife knew, and then wondered why suspicious wifey wasn't the Sex Express.

Anyway, LW, I agree with NumberSix, kaliraven, and NicoleK: Take into account that your wife is a mother of two, exhausted, and cranky (the latter two of which generally not being conducive to wild mojo) and hope that she's not a newly self-realized asexual. Best wishes for a little one's big-girl bed and a wifely welcome back to your own bed in your future.

Sheepmommy: All that being said, the scorn being heaped upon this woman is unbelievable. As mothers, we make mistakes that is true, but it is going to be really hard to change this sleeping arrangement.

It's not unbelievable at all. On the contrary, your untenable dismissal of this as a mere mistake is what's unbelievable. This is a calculated power struggle. Call it what it is.

Sheepmommy: LW doesn't say what he has offered to do help the transition.

Yes, he has. She has her own bedroom. She's six. Figure it out.

lujlp: "Your commitment to your kids is greater then your commitment to eachother."

You will never be more incorrect in your entire life. A spouse's FIRST commitment is to their spouse. The kids come second.

I agree entirely, sheepmommy.

The only time my girls slept with me after the age of 2 was when we were camping. That's IT. Of course when they were babies they slept with me, in the same room, in a bassinet by the bed. And yes, I'd have them in the bed with me to breast feed but when they were done, back in the bassinet they went! But once they had their own beds, if they woke up in the middle of the night after a bad dream or whatever, I'd stay with them in their room until they went back to sleep. They got their big girl beds on their second birthday. They shared a room (with bunk beds, even) until the older was 9, then they got their own rooms. There really is no need for children to sleep with their parents unless space is an issue. LW, you've got to talk with your wife about this. If she won't even broach the subject with you, I'd have to say, go with loojy's advice, sad to say. I'm sorry you're going through this.

"Good God. What sane woman WANTS to sleep with a six year old? Seriously!"

Easy: a woman who doesn't want to have sex with the man in the room with them, and wants some social "cover" for her stance.

If Brad Pitt was lightly napping next to her, available at the slightest nudge, that same six year old kid would be sitting in a dank basement rec room, wondering why mom pitched her down the basement stairs before racing back to the bedroom.

There's also a whole earth-mother contingent that pushes the concept of a "family bed".

That's what I thought of as well. I know a few women who've done this, but most get over it soon enough. I don't know of many who are still sleeping with a 6 year old. I'd be interested to know how long she's nursed the 6 year old. Because sometimes the sleeping and nursing issues seem to be intertwined. It's as though the mom doesn't want to let her kids move onto the next phase.

But also some women do seem to shut down sexually after they've had kids. It's probably a combination of factors, from hormones to body image and other personal issues. If she refuses to even broach the subject, it may be because she doesn't want to have to acknowledge this. So she's putting on the 6 year old.

Well, for what it's worth...
Our toddler sleeps with us, and I hate it. I hate that I've only got 18 inches of space in a king-sized bed. I hate being kicked. I hate that she tries to play with my hair and pulls out the individual strands. I haven't had a full night of sleep since November of 2009.
I'm not the one who insists on letting her sleep with us, though- my husband is. She has her own room. She has her "big-girl" bed. Husband just "can't handle" her crying when we try to put her in her own room. So, what little success I've had in getting her into her own room is always undone because Daddy has to "rescue" her when "mean mommy" insists that she go to bed by herself, in her own room, at a reasonable time.

We are not Sears "attachment" parents.

So, all of that being said, I do have some practical things to say to the letter writer:

1. IF he wants the six-year-old in her own bed, he needs to help with bedtime, and he needs to start early in the evening... like an hour before bedtime. If the goal is to get her to bed by 8, she needs to be fed by 7, then shuffled off to bath and story time, and NO TV. Maybe he needs to lay down with her in her room for a while. It's a lot easier for his wife to let little Six sleep with her than to struggle with getting her to bed while caring for an infant.

2. Everybody's different, but sex can be pretty painful, even months after having a baby. That could be part of the reason she's avoiding it. I had a c-section with my kid, but sex hurt for about 8 months after having her. It might be worth discussing with your wife, to see if that's part of the problem.

lujlp: "Your commitment to your kids is greater then your commitment to eachother."

Patrick: "You will never be more incorrect in your entire life. A spouse's FIRST commitment is to their spouse. The kids come second."

Patrick, I think you missed the point that that advice was premised on his relationship with his spouse already being dead and burried.

If they had a good realtionship I'd agree with - parents who are comited to each other raise healthy kids, usually.

But if his relationship is dead, his duty is to do what is best for his kids, whether tha be leaving his wife if she forces the issue via her treatment of him, or staying with her even if it makes both of them miserable in private

Luj, my apologies, then. That makes sense. Since this marriage is dead, his first responsibility is to his kids.

Men facing this circumstance should listen to sheepmommy in two regards:

(1) Discussing the matter in a calm, honest, straightforward manner is a given, as divorce is unpleasant in the best of circumstances. And parents with small kids are not going to face the best of circumstances; their divorces will likely be worse than unpleasant, no matter how cooperative the divorcing parties intend to be at first.

Hence, adults facing a no-sex spouse should speak to a divorce attorney to get a sense of what they may face in any divorce to come. They can then plan their lives accordingly. This is especially true of men, who face certain real-world disadvantages in divorce courts.

(2) When discussing no-sex-life issues with your spouse (and that is likely what this issue really is about, not kids in the bed), if your spouse snaps to his or her senses and says "Damn, I am messing this up. Okay, let's fix this, I am all in for the effort" and puts in such effort (Unlikely, imho), then the more randy spouse can and should certainly give it a good faith shot. But the greater part of effort necessarily comes from the "sex? meh." spouse. They are the ones who need to honestly appraise what is up with their sex drive and then communicate that. Most people cannot look inward, honestly appraise their behaviors, and then articulate what is up with them. So the project will typically fail, largely because the no-sex spouse just doesn't have an incentive or inspect to address things like the randier spouse does.

Much of what is said here by gals typically reflects what is said elsewhere on this matter around the internet and in books and, I suspect, in couples counseling: most commentary subtlely shifts the burden (under a banner of blame) onto the men/high-sex-drive partner.

The standard contemporary consensus cultural response to this topic is thus: "Oh, no interest in sex on your wife's part? Kids in the bed on a "no negotiations" basis? She avoided addressing the issue when you raised it calmly, in a spirt of honest inquiry? Well, sir, what are *YOU* doing to cause this problem? Hmmmmm? What chores are you doing? What hoops are you not leaping through? Can you not see she is tired? Are you really doing all you can to reignite her fires of lustful abandon? Because we can't know what the problem is until *you*, sir, have been fully vetted for your failures as a husband and father."

I can only imagine how it must be to be a dutiful suburban type of dude, coming home from work, facing a houseful after yet another shitty day in the office or workplace, and then being told by some counselor at $300/hour that the reason sex is no longer part of your life is because you are inadequate in some largely unexplained way. As a result, it is up to him to figure out and fix the issue through trial and error. The gal will provide occasional, incomplete feedback on progress.

The only thing that would keep a man in that situation is the prospect of not getting to see your kids and paying 25% of your gross salary to fund your wife's next boyfriend's hobbies. Not surprisingly, that is what guys face and end up doing.

To avoid realizing this is their life, men will indulge the fiction they are offered. They hope that the Mystery of the Disappearing Sex Drive is like an engineering problem: once the correct inputs are delivered per the suggested protocols, the machinery will fire up and work again. So guys will start doing choreplay, attentive-spouse exercises, etc. But like a hamster hitting the pellet bar in a psych experiment, for all the efforts at hitting the bar, very few pellets seem to come out. And then, only grudgingly and half-hearted pellets at that.

Don't do it.

From what I have seen and heard from men who lived through this over the decades, once women have decoupled actual sexual interest (real sexual interest--not the it-is-Wednesday-and-we-are-married-so-let's-have-sex marital sex patterns)from a particular guy, that is usually it. The woman's lust will not come back.

At best the men will get a warm sense of spousal accomodation on a regular basis. If you do not even get that, screw it. Marriage over.

NicoleK wrote: Make lots of playdates with kids who have their own rooms. This is a situation where peer pressure might be good.

This totally worked for my sister. She was 10 and still sleeping in my parents' bed, and driving them nuts. She'd start out in her own and then wander in after they'd fallen asleep and make herself comfortable between them. They'd tell her to leave, and she'd say "no," knowing that they'd be too tired to fight. The next day, they'd lecture her, threaten her allowance, the whole works. She'd cry. She just hated sleeping alone.

The ONLY thing that worked, finally, was embarrassment. She had a few friends over for a sleepover. They had set up camp in the basement. My dad went down to say goodnight and then said, "OK sweetie, no crawling into our bed tonight. It's rude to leave your friends alone down here alone." Then he turned to her friends and asked, "Do you guys still sleep with your parents?" They laughed and said, "NOOOOOOO!!! eeeewww!"

Worked like a charm. This sleeping situation is normal for the LW's wife and the kid. He should find some way to jostle this notion.

@Spartee
guys will start doing choreplay, attentive-spouse exercises, etc. But like a hamster hitting the pellet bar in a psych experiment, for all the efforts at hitting the bar, very few pellets seem to come out. And then, only grudgingly and half-hearted pellets at that.

Don't do it.
-------------------------

Thank you Spartee.

What modern men need, is not a "sensitivity training" or "you-problem-is-inside-you" counseling.
They need to get their self-respect back and get a sober view of the bitchfest of last 40 years that goes by the name "women equality movement".

If a woman wants a family, she needs to understand and accept that the foundational pillar of a family for a woman is "please your husband". If that is not to your taste, live single, or co-habitate.

Thanks again for being a champion.

Well, just to be clear, Mere Mortal, there are things guys need to do too: stay fit, employed, clean, well-groomed, polite, respectful, attentive and generally good-natured.

But yeah, assuming guys are generally holding up their end of the bargain, men need to be (and get to be) men.

I suspect many women get married because they want to build a nest and have babies, not so much because they want to have sex 3 times a week for the rest of their lives. If she's keeping the child in bed just because she doesn't want to bother with sex, I agree the change has to come from her. She has to weigh up that this is the life she wants and how she and her husband need to meet each other's needs to keep it humming along. I think the most alarming part of his letter is where he says she "refuses to even discuss it".

Wow, Spartee, and Mere Mortal, bitter much?

This:
If a woman wants a family, she needs to understand and accept that the foundational pillar of a family for a woman is "please your husband". If that is not to your taste, live single, or co-habitate.

could also apply to men, you know. Men also need to "understand and accept that the foundational pillar of a family for a [man]" is "please your wife" and help her out once in a while! You don't get to sit on your ass just because you were at work all day, what if your wife was too?? You think she wants to come home from a shitty assed day at work and deal with picking up YOUR smelly socks and towels, as well as dealing with the kids and making dinner and doing the dishes and vacuuming the floors and cleaning the toilet?

Sheeesh. Tunnel vision much?

Nobody plans on having a 6 year old in the bed with them. It starts out as a way for a breastfeeding mom to get more sleep if baby is in/near the bed. Baby sleeps longer and mom doesn't have to traipse out of bed for multiple nighttime nursings.

Toddlers used to co-sleeping are usually easier to sleep with than to transition into their own bed. Like puppies, they like to sleep in puppy piles.

At some point (different for everyone) it is no longer 'easier' or 'gets more sleep' with the child in the bed. However, the transition can be excruciating.

If the goal is having the school age child in her own bed, without undue drama, then make it easier for that to happen.

The waterbed trick worked for my son. He slept with us until about age 3. Transitioning was difficult. Very difficult. Seen from a child's perspective, they are getting kicked to the curb.

LW needs to look at a goal of 30 to 60 days of the child successfully sleeping in her own bed before the habit is pretty well set.

I'd wager the mom is exhausted dealing with interrrupted sleep and all. So LW should take on the role of bed time preparer for the 6 year old.
http://theoatmeal.com/comics/minor_differences4
(scroll down to the 3rd...)

Just like advice for a new puppy, a hot water bottle and a ticking clock when you bring the puppy home can make for a quieter night for everyone. Sure you can crate them and let them howl, but it is less traumatic for the whole household to smooth the transition. Same thinking for transitioning the 6 year old.

Make it easier/ more rewarding for the child to do what you want instead of making it a battle. Bribe with M&Ms for each night spent in her own bed without interruption. Make her bed and bedroom comfortable and conducive to a full night of sleep.

Then don't ask, tell the wife that you are not comfortable with the 6 year old continuing in the bed. No threats. No ultimatums. A simple statement of fact.

If the wife is dealing with exhaustion and possibly post-partum depression, then get her help.

The marriage is not dead. Yet. Dealing with issues and finding positive ways of overcoming those issues is what makes a responsible, committed partner and parent.

Btw, it was me, not my hubby that wanted our son out of the bed. I needed my sleep and hubby loves sleeping in a puppy pile too.

Okay Spartee, you partially redeemed yourself with your follow-up comment. And, hey, what Lizzie said, too. There are 2 sides to this coin, guys, and if LW is pulling his weight, then his wife needs to up the ante and make sure his needs are being met. If she's not willing, then SHE's the problem, not him.

The story I told above about the guy whose wife kept the kids in their bed at the ages of 10+, or alternatively would "accidentally" fall asleep in the kids' bedrooms--he's now divorced.

Sorry guys. This is not a man vs woman thing. They both created this little monster when they allowed her into their bed. And yes, I called the kid a monster bc at bed time I guarantee you that is what she becomes when she does not get her way. This is one of the hardest problems to confront.

Here is my story. My dd had her own bed/crib from the moment she got home. We followed Dr. Rosemond's advice and had no problems. When she was about three, she got really sick and so we moved her into our room for week so I could keep an eye on her and get some sleep. Big mistake. It took us months to deprogram her. It was awful, but we stayed together and provide a unified front.

This has nothing to do with the LW writer getting in touch with his inner woman, child, puppy or whatever and everything to do with getting on the same page as his spouse. I agree with the men who say that he needs to be honest about his needs and what he feels his long limitations are, but he also must be prepared to the heavy lifting to get this kid into her own bed. After all this time, it will not be easy. If you have never tried to make this transition with your own child, you just cannot appreciate the fight they are in for. I am guessing that they have tried in the past and it did not go well.

To take a one-sided letter and tell this guy his marriage is over before he has tried everything under the sun to save it crazy.

Flynne, I am not bitter at all; I feel I am realistic. The latter is often mistaken for the former by people who really don't like things as they are.

All my life, since childhood, I have enjoyed the company and warm friendship of females. To really understand women, you have to like being around them, a lot. And I do.

But I generally don't pretend that things are other than what they are. And I have found that the simple act of acknowledging the obvious is sometimes enough to make a certain segment of the population very uncomfortable. That general statement also applies to discussions of what drives men and women to make their decisions about sex.

Whether it is a hard discussion about closing a failed business, acknowledging the inevitability of mortality, or sex, some people simply want to say, "NOOOOO!" to the obvious. People will often claim that you are mean, bitter, dumb, etc. when stating difficult truths. There is no changing their minds, I have found, no matter how many contrary data points are presented.

As I suggested above, I sometimes encounter guys with beer guts, small paychecks, grubby appearances and little social skills bitching about how some attractive woman is "stuck up". Nah, I blandly tell them, she just doesn't want to have anything to do with you, and she just let you know it. There is a difference between that and stuck up.

Except with men, they are mad for only a minute before they laugh in agreement and swig on the beer again. Women nurse the hurt much longer.

Sometimes I think people who have kids are all nuts. When I read stuff like this, I can literally feel my tubes tying themselves, and that makes me wonder why I bothered spending $1,000 to have it done back when I was 34.

Jesus Christ on a donkey.

Pirate Jo, for years my mother kept a saying up in her kitchen, "Insanity is hereditary, you get it from your kids." It's true in a lot of ways. That said, I'm not sorry I had the kid. My heart still lifts whenever I see his sweet face.

There are cultures where families sleep together in big clumps. But usually, if money allows, kids move into their own (sometimes shared) beds by four years or so.

Six years old is too old for the family bed.

Hubbie needs a new wife. I don't know what to do about the kids. One cannot foresee every issue before getting married, and a high fraction of American women are secret weirdos.

If possible, live with a woman for couple of years before having kids. And lock that barn door after the horses are stolen.

Sorry, LW, life is tough and then you die. You have the right to visit cute call girls, get a girlfriend etc, whatever you want, in the meantime. Try to turn this negative into a personal positive.

Pirate jo, Kids are like really fast, expensive motorcyles. The costs of care are high. the risk of a life-ruining outcome is higher than most alternatives. And even if things are going well, there are times where you are quite sure this was the dumbest thing you ever did when you decided to bring this thing into your life.

But against all that, the time spent with the product of the decision to go ahead and get one is typically the funnest part of every day, and getting rid of it is simply not an realistic option.

@sheepmommy To take a one-sided letter and tell this guy his marriage is over before he has tried everything under the sun to save it crazy.

Not at all. To demand that anyone tries "everything under the sun" is bitchy, egoistical and nuts. LW needs to try just few reasonable things that were all recommended by other posters.
That's all. His wife, based on the letter, behaves as a rotten "Disneyland princess".
---------------------------------------
I would advice LW another thing to try first:
move your child out of your bed tonight.
Stand your ground.
Nothing pacifies women and girls like a man who stands firm.

@Pirate Jo people who have kids are all nuts.
Not at all. The impression that it is is an artifact of the mentioned 40 years bitchfest. Children are easy and delightful when treated right (assuming they are healthy, of course).

I hate that she tries to play with my hair and pulls out the individual strands. I haven't had a full night of sleep since November of 2009.

Surely, you are a saint. I have zero patience on a good day. Without sleep, I'm pretty sure I'd make Andrea Yates look like mother of the year.

"It starts out as a way for a breastfeeding mom to get more sleep if baby is in/near the bed."

But the LW is implying that the 6 year old has been in their bed for 6 years. So it's not because of the infant's breastfeeding. The first child has been in their bed all along.

Also Spartee is right, to a degree. Whenever this subject comes up people tend to put the responsibility almost exclusively the husband when it's usually the wife. Choreplay is a good term for it. If anything, I can see this advice backfiring because what happens after he's done everything that he's supposed to and she still doesn't changer her mind?

"To take a one-sided letter and tell this guy his marriage is over before he has tried everything under the sun to save it crazy."

Yeah, I find it interesting that there's so much talk of the high divorce rate - and how women are the ones who choose divorce more than men - yet, so many of the guys here are so quick to advise divorce.

Your wife doesn't satisfy your needs, even while nursing a baby and caring for a 6 yr old? Dump her!

Why bother trying to fix things? Dump her!

Something doesn't quite add up. I don't think any woman in this thread has suggested bailing on the marriage before trying to fix it.

"That's all. His wife, based on the letter, behaves as a rotten "Disneyland princess"."

I'm not seeing the princess element here. Her life sounds like hell. She's got an infant she's nursing round the clock, she's got a 6-year-old who would have to be surgically removed from her body, and she's got a needy husband, too. Not sexy! This is one of the classic marital scenarios. Female desire comes and goes pretty predictably because of hormonal changes, and one of the times when it tends to go is while mothering an infant. Pick up any book on mothers and babies--this is very well known. That's the bad news. The good news is that there's a decent chance that given a year or two of kindness and patience, the pilot light of female desire can be turned back on, but if you move too fast or too roughly, you may break the knob off. That's why the advice to move on to another woman is dumb--we're almost all like this, so there's nothing to be lost by being kind and patient with the one you've got now who happens to be the mother of your children.

There's a very smart lady named Julia Grey who has a website entitled Why Your Wife Won't Have Sex With You.

http://juliagrey.wordpress.com/introduction/

She's helpful and not mean and she says she herself is a former frigid wife.

I agree with the poster above who suggests the husband pitch in more. My preferred solution would be for the wife to be in charge of the infant, while the husband is in charge of getting the 6-year-old to bed (in her very own room). I suspect he doesn't understand how hard this is going to be, but that his wife does, which is why she hasn't done it (somebody up above had some excellent advice about bedtime routine and there are books and resources). Ideally, this conversation should be done with a marriage counselor. I don't think you need to be worried about the marriage counselor being on the wife's side in this instance--there's no way that co-sleeping with a 6-year-old is going to fly with a normal marriage counselor. This is about sex, ultimately, but for the moment, just concentrate on getting the 6-year-old out of the bedroom and being a thoughtful husband and father. There's no need to panic for at least another year or two.

Just think about the animal kingdom--female mammals are not sexually receptive 100% of the time. They go in and out of heat and a fair amount of the time, males will get the cold shoulder.

@Amy P Just think about the animal kingdom--female mammals are not sexually receptive 100% of the time.

Funny that you shall bring that.

Are there marriage vows in animal kingdom?
Divorce lawyers?
Social workers?
What about counselors saying to a frustrated male --- be kind, patient and thoughtful for at least two more years?

I thought about LW's dilemma as I was doing my morning chores and decided that what is bothering me is the lumping together of several problems into a single letter and people giving advice as though all the issues can be resolved with a single solution.

I see it as:
1) Lack of effective two way communication between LW and his wife.
2) Lack of sleep.
3) School age child in the bed.

Obviously, they are interrelated. But they are also separate issues.

If the LW was okay with the older child in his bed for many years then made a unilateral decision that it was long enough, I can see how that might not go over well. He made the child and allowed/encouraged or permitted the family bed for years. If he wants it to change he needs to help effect that change.

If he takes over bed duties for the older child, he takes some of the burden off his wife. The wife is dealing with an infant that might be fussy or whatever. She might have depression or just be overwhelmed and chronically underrested. That might also lead into the lack of interest in sex...

Let LW put the girl to bed in her own bed and be responsible for carrying her back there if she tries to get back in the family bed. Take that responsibility. It is a bitch kitty to transition an unwilling child out of the bed and he seems to expect the wife to do it. Step up, man. This means he has to be in his bed, not the other room.

Get yourself some Astroglide personal lubricant for sexual assistance. Sex after childbirth can be painful for a very long time. If wifey is better rested and not overwhelmed with the demands of two children, she is more likely to respond to romantic overtures. Exhaustion and discomfort are not conducive to good sex.

Break the issues down. Obviously LW's camel has too many straws on it but he should try to recognize they are not a single burden that must be picked up or laid down whole.

Good advice, LauraGr, but it sounds from the letter that this isn't just a situation which has arisen due to exhaustion or habit, as many here are suggesting. Re-reading the letter makes it clear that LW's wife is a proponent of "co-sleeping", and won't even discuss transitioning the 6 yr old to her own bed (though apparently it's ok to kick hubby out of the "family bed").

If that's the case, it won't matter if he offers to takes over the transitioning. She is philosophically opposed to it.

A lot of damage has been done to marriages by these weird parenting philosophies. LW needs to find a way (or somebody, like a counselor) to talk some sense into his wife.

My Lamaze/LeLeche League coach beieved in the "family bed" and she had about 3 or 4 kids plus her husband in that bed. She seemed cool, and they're still together, but I always wondered how they slept and/or made babies.

When you have done something like this:

Kids are like really fast, expensive motorcyles. The costs of care are high. the risk of a life-ruining outcome is higher than most alternatives. And even if things are going well, there are times where you are quite sure this was the dumbest thing you ever did when you decided to bring this thing into your life.

And this is also the case:

getting rid of it is simply not an realistic option.

Then this is what you tell yourself to keep from opening a vein:

But against all that, the time spent with the product of the decision to go ahead and get one is typically the funnest part of every day

What one person might call a desperate, head-in-the-sand state of denial is just another person's coping mechanism.

I'll happily leave it to other people to maintain the numbers of the, er, dwindling (cough cough) human race.

I re-read the letter. Twice. I can't help but think that Amy and some others may be off the mark. Especially if the wife is suffering from depression.

Depressed people do not ask for help. For the most part. They barely function. It is a possibility that should be considered here.

There are other possibilities up to and including the wife being a Frost Queen but a medical/emotional concern should definitely be considered.

Mere Mortal,

The pilot light of female desire goes on and off very predictably. There are occasions when it can go on again with coaxing, and there are other occasions (for instance early motherhood) when the very idea of sexual contact can be disgusting, nausea-provoking, not to mention even physically painful. Among other things, (sorry for being graphic), but during breastfeeding there may be no natural lubrication. Sure, that can be added artificially, but it's a sign that the new mother is not sexually receptive. I recommend having a look at the sex chapter in Vicki Iovine's very funny, very realistic Girlfriends' Guide to Surviving the First Year of Motherhood, which discusses these issues in helpful detail. Iovine says that if it were just up to mothers, very few would have sex at all before their babies turned 1.

The good news is that that sexless postpartum stage is generally temporary, but it is very physiologically real. It's not surprising that the letter writer's wife is wimping out. (If I could just put you for one minute in the nightie of a new mother who had her perineum cut to get out the baby, then sewed up and whose husband is expecting to have intercourse, using that very same opening. Eek!)

The reason I'm suggesting that the letter writer be kind and patient is that his wife is in Crazytown right now (practically all pregnant women and new mothers are), so he's probably the most functional adult in his household right now. It's up to him to be the grownup and save his family.

so, Pirate Jo, all those motorcycle owners and parents are lying to themselves as they cannot stop smiling, while they tool down life's road?

Well, how would you know?

/arched eyebrow

@Amy P
You bring a good point, but not likely valid in this case.

I've been through that "sexless postpartum stage" and what makes a difference is the general emotional attitude of the wife. LW's wife tells him pretty much "shut up and do what I decide."

I would bet that most men can tell a difference between his wife is having physiological troubles to have sex with him and when she is treating him as an appliance, "financing her life choices".

My wife was tender and loving with me at that "postpartum period" although only for a couple of minutes a day. As far as the lack of sex per se --- a guy could always use his hand. It is the attitude that hurts husbands most, not the lack of a wet pussy.

I lost a long comment, but I think LauraGr is on to something about depression, which is very likely generating the intransigence that AmyA and Mere Mortal note. She's not in her right mind, and part of that is due to the fact that thanks to her everloving family bed philosophy, she's probably not sleeping more than two hours at a time, which is bound to be detrimental to her rationality and problem solving abilities. I suspect she needs to be saved from herself, the sooner the better. Talk to doctors, quickly!

Her life sounds like hell. She's got an infant she's nursing round the clock, she's got a 6-year-old who would have to be surgically removed from her body, and she's got a needy husband, too. Not sexy!

Reread Amy's comments. This has been going on for a while and the wife isn't willing to deal with it. It's not about housework, or post-partum whatever. It's been an ongoing issue. I think that it's a bit much to criticize the LW for being needy because he wants to sleep in the same bed as his wife after six years.

Spartee, I don't think the motorcycle comparison is a very good one, because if you decide you don't enjoy having a motorcycle, it CAN be sold or otherwise gotten rid of.

When it comes to children, you are just stuck. Many, many people regret having them, and many more simply pretend otherwise because it keeps them from throwing themselves in front of a train.

@Pirate Jo
Even more people regret not being able to have children and many more are willing throw themselves in front of a train if it only saves their child.

And your point is?
(Other then congratulating your self on the choices you made.)

Actually, I am just congratulating myself on the choices I have made. If there are people who regret not having to put up with the crap the LW is dealing with, that's their problem.

@Pirate Jo If there are people who regret not having to put up with the crap the LW is dealing with, that's their problem.

Actually, equating having children with the problems LW is dealing with is an early sign of mental dementia. Drugs and brain exercises could help, Pirate Jo.

Even more people regret not being able to have children

To be fair, I'd say it would be better to regret NOT having kids than to regret having them. Sometimes, seeing a screaming child at the grocery store makes me reach into my purse and clutch my birth control, thankful that it's there. But I do agree with you that the parent of that child, at the end of the day, is probably just as happy with his/her choice as I am with mine. For all I know, even happier.

How on earth are this guy's problems NOT related to having children?

Although granted, not all parents are dumb enough to let a kid sleep in their bed that long.

I think SOME people are happy with their choice to have kids, but not most. The reason I say this is that if you ask anyone - ANYONE - why they had kids, 99% of the time their answer will be "I don't know." Having kids is too life-changing to do it because your brain was on standby. So it's logical to conclude that most people who do something so drastic for basically no reason at all will not often be happy with that choice. And this completely coincides with all the bitching I hear about it.

Of the people who give it serious, rational thought, many of will decide not to do it. Of the few remaining who do, I think they do end up being happy they became parents.

As for the majority of those who become parents out of sheer stupidity, I give them maybe a 5% satisfaction rate.

"A lot of "parents" don't make a choice. They just get sloppy with birth control or don't really think about what having children entails."

I think this is key. The people who regret having kids usually did a piss-poor job raising them, which almost always indicates that they weren't "kid people" to begin with.

I don't know anybody who really loves being around kids who regrets having their own. ANY job - from teaching to medicine - has people in it who don't belong, and therefore, regret what they're doing. That isn't an indication that the job isn't worthwhile, just that these people were ill-suited for it.

I congratulate those, like Amy and Pirate Jo, who recognize how ill-suited they would be for parenthood, but don't make those of us who are well-suited feel foolish or suggest we're "in denial".

I'm not suited to be a construction worker or a nurse, but many people love these jobs and do them well. I love being a parent, as challenging as it's been at times, and I wouldn't trade it for anything.

@Pirate Jo

You sound less stupid when you just congratulate your self then when you try to give some nonsense a flair or "research and reason" that "dear Amy" claims so much.

>>How on earth are this guy's problems NOT related to having children?

If it were not for children, it would have been about dogs, cats, too-small-house, wrong color of walls, etc.

If LW were to live in a more sensible country, he would have more choices, but as it is, his best one is to find a good divorce lawyer.

"If there are people who regret not having to put up with the crap the LW is dealing with, that's their problem."

Sure there's a lot of crap that comes with parenthood, but it's not ALL crap. There's also a great deal of joy and love and FUN. My kid makes me laugh every day. I don't know about everyone else, but there have been few people in my life I can say that about. The important thing, as Amy pointed out, is to not just drift into it but to make a considered choice.

And you, Mere Mortal, sound stupid all the time.

@Pirate Jo
>>And you, Mere Mortal, sound stupid all the time

It is my life style choice, OK?

Wow, this letter really ignited a discussion here...upon thinking about it, I think this whole cosleeping till the kid's in college thing is indicative of a larger problem, especially the wife's refusal to discuss the issue. The LW may want to consider looking into therapy (that is, if you can find a therapist who isn't going to assume that it's all the man's fault) to figure out a way to get through the wife's resistance to talking about it.

I think her refusal to talk is the bigger problem - refusing to discuss an issue, whether it's cosleeping, work hours, finances, etc. is a big warning sign and often the death knell of a relationship. After all, shutting down dialog is the most effective way to ensure that a problem never gets solved. This may just be a passive way for her to absent herself from their relationship. After all, a husband and wife who aren't sleeping together aren't spouses, they're roommates.

Oddly enough, all the people I know who are really into the earth-mother co-sleeping thing have tons of kids, so they must be having sex.

Anyhow, I agree with those who say the no-sex is a separate issue from the sleeping arrangements. Both are issues, both need to be dealt with.

I'm willing to bet that LW's wife is under the influence of some "alpha mom" who is maintaining that "co-sleeping" is the best way to raise secure, well-bonded children. Young mothers are very susceptible to this.

LW, here are some practical ideas:

First, almost no "co-sleeping" style of parenting suggests doing this until the kid is in college, so you need to ask your wife what, in her mind, is the acceptable age for the child to begin sleeping independently.

If she says, "14", then you should definately seek counseling for her and/or pack your bags. But if she says, "7 or 8," perhaps this will open a dialogue about how and when you should begin the transition, and at least you'll have a time frame to work from.

Maybe you can live with that. I mean, it's 2 years or less, and perhaps you can suggest ways to have sex in the meantime - like in the shower, or drop the kids off at grandparents and do it in the car.

Since you apparently accepted that your wife wasn't a sexual spitfire before you married her, maybe once or twice a week will be enough for you right now. You can continue sleeping in the other room, to get your rest, but at least you'll have a deadline, and your wife will feel like you're on the same page with her about "co-sleeping".

I don't know. These are just ideas for how you can make this work as opposed to destroying your family. That should always be the last resort.

Gee, I just realized that won't work. Even if he gets the older kid out of the bed, the younger one will still be in it. :(

Sheepmom and AmyP:

I fully believe that my daughter should go to her own bed now. My wife does not agree. In fact, she refuses to even discuss it.

This is not tired. This is not chores. This is not facing a needy husband who won't help her remove the limpet-like waif from their bed.

Hubby is FULLY on board with helping her fight that fight, and probably has a roll of duct tape ready to keep the little darling in bed (For what it's worth, I had to do some heavy lifting to keep Thing 2 in her own bed, so I know whereof I speak)...but mom...isn't...interested...

And from what Amy suggests, this lack of interest predated the new infant, so the Post Partum excuse won't fly. There is a problem and she is happily sleeping with an infant and a six year old instead of her husband.

On the choreplay front:

Personally, I'd love to hear what is 'enough' sleep/chores/massages/dinners etc which actually translates into nookie. But I guess actually assigning a number 'spoils the mood' too.

And there is the old standby if a guy actually does do the chores/tames the 6 year old/ gets the raise/ makes the romantic gestures or kills the Mastadon; 'He is guilting me into sex and that makes me feel pressured and cheap'

If you (generic) go the 'quid pro quo' route of romance, you better make sure your prices stay consistant and the game is worth the candle.

Look, I'm no relationship expert, but in my arrogant opinion the marriage came to a grinding halt with "She stays, and that's and end of it."

As soon as the possibility of discussion was pushed aside, the relationship was no longer a partnership, but a master and slave.

Perhaps he could have prevented it by being more stern about the co-sleeping with the first child. However, that ship has sailed.

The very best he can hope for is to get a marriage counselor that is not anti-man to get his wife's head screwed on straight again and realize that the family is not supposed to be a dictatorship of Mommy.

However, it is most likely that the instant he tries to save his marriage she will end it forcefully and he'll never see his children again.

Welcome to hell. Here's your accordion.

lovelysoul,

If the guys seem so quick to pull divorce trigger, it is because they feel some women act in bad faith.

What sheepmom is suggesting can easily lead to an endless dance with the woman calling the tune for a shot at sex...which never seems to pay off. And being played like that, or having such uneven power dynamics in a relationship 'doesn't put the guy in the mood' for sex..or a LTR.

R-E-S-P-E-C-T.

LW's wife isn't showing any.

I am somewhat surprised at the amount of assumptions being thrown around on these comments. There could be a lot more going on here other than "she's avoiding sex, get out now!". It's one possibility, but not the only one. Coming from the perspective of the mom of a 3 month old and a 2 year old, and with a full time job: it's EXHAUSTING! And I have a sweet, happy easy baby who sleeps through the night - I can't even imagine how much more tired I'd be if I had a fussy baby.

Sleep issues of any kind take a LOT of resolve to fix, and both parents have to be on board because if you are (1) not presenting a united front and (2) not willing to stay up all night to make it happen, then you will not win. And once the kid wins then it's even harder.

We recently went through the transition from the crib to the big-girl bed with the 2 year old, and it was MUCH harder than I expected. In retrospect I should have just bought another crib; hindsight is a bitch. FYI, the baby was sleeping in a cradle next to the bed (and in bed a good chunk of the time when I would fall asleep nursing) but is now in her bassinet in her room. The commenters who are positive she's doing this with sinister intent possibly don't understand just how hard this can be, especially if she's working, cooking, and taking care of the kids with little help. Maybe she's just at the end of her rope, or doesn't want to face the awful sleep transition (knowing that eventually the kid will want her own bed), or really believes in the family bed . . . or maybe her husband is emotionally distant and she's getting her emotional needs met with her kids?

I'm interested to know if the wife works outside the home, (maybe she feels like this is the only quality time with her kids?) if she is earthy-crunchy and believes strongly in the co-sleeping family bed thing? How exactly did they get to having a six-year old in the bed??? I mean, it's not like LW just woke up today and said "get this 6 year-old out of the bed!" How much does he actually participate in everyday parenting? - in care & feeding, activities, bedtime, bath, stories, and also decisions? Do they talk about other parenting decisions or is this the only subject that is off-limits? Perhaps she refuses to discuss it because they have been over the same ground countless times before and doesn't have the energy?

And how old is the baby? 2 months? 9 months? That makes a huge difference in the whole discussion -- at 2 months, kicking the 6 year old out of bed cold-turkey would be pretty harsh. At 9 months, she's certainly had plenty of time to get used to the new baby.

I admit that refusing to discuss it is a huge red flag and does not bode well. But there's years of baggage behind this situation and without knowing the history we shouldn't assume that it's hopeless, or that she's just using him for a paycheck! The important part of this discussion is figuring out how to move forward and get LW what he wants, but it's certainly not going to happen overnight. Amy's advise is spot-on in my opinion: they need to discuss it; calmly, without accusations, and when she is well-rested and away from the kids (probably a very rare commodity in the first place) and they need to come to a compromise that addresses his needs & wants.

chickia,

You are correct about the united front. But so far, only HE is showing up for the war...and it seems Mom is actively on the other side.

It doesn't sound like she is whining she is too tired for this fight. It seems she refuses to kick the kid out.

Not to make it personal, but are you having issues anywhere as bad with your husband? (and I don't really want an answer. This is your personal issues. I just wanted to put it in perspective.)

I think the idea that the husband 'take things in hand' for a 'mere' year or two...three on the outside while Mommy catches up on her sleep/pulls her head out of her rear to be laughable.

While I might wait that long for a wonderful loving woman who had an accident...that doesn't sound anything like the LW's woman who seems to be actively fighting his advances.

@chickia

One does not need to be well-rested, away from kids, have no physical pain, have all chores done, etc. to have and show respect to one's spouse, though one might need all of the above to pretend that the respect is there.

Personally, I'd love to hear what is 'enough' sleep/chores/massages/dinners etc which actually translates into nookie. But I guess actually assigning a number 'spoils the mood' too.

I think that it's safe to say that if your wife suggests 'choreplay' as the solution to her waning libido, that it's a good indication that she's already done with sex. This isn't something that a woman with a normal sex drive would ever find arousing, unless she has some weird cleaning fetish. Frankly most of the advice that women give men concerning this problem seems like a lot of self serving nonsense. You'll notice that it almost always comes from women who seem to have issues of their own in this regard.

If men were to advise women to humiliate themselves and become servants to their husbands in order to receive some affection, there'd rightfully be an outcry.

My personal issue is that I have a full time job, a 2 year old, a 3 month old that sleeps through the night, and an awesome husband that helps a lot . . . but am still exhausted (and not complaining, just stating a fact). There is not enough time in the day to do everything, there's just not. If I had a fussy baby or a husband who didn't help? I honestly don't know if I could hold it together.

My point is that yes, it seems like she has no respect for him and refusing to discuss it is not acceptable, but *we* (the collective commenters) don't know how they got to this point (hello, 6 years old? these are not new issues!) And we don't know what their situation is (her side). Maybe he's a jerk who expects dinner on the table every night 5 minutes after she gets home from work and a perfect house all the time? Yes, it seems unlikely but we're not there. Amy's advise was right - discuss it and come to a compromise. Jumping to conclusions that she's a harpy who's not interested in sex at all and just using him for his paycheck is kind of a stretch.

And I am absolutely not advocating that he live with the situation for 6+ more years (remember there's a baby who if the same pattern is followed will be in bed for a while too!) - just that realistically, it's not going to magically change overnight. And if the main issue is that she believes very strongly in the whole "family bed" concept then compromise might be hard. The sleep thing and the sex thing are 2 different issues, related, but different.

True, chickia, these are NOT new issues. I'm kind of wondering why he didn't get the issues with the first kid resolved before making another one.

I don't know why everyone thinks the older kid has been sleeping with them since birth. My guess is she got jealous that the new baby got to sleep with Mom & Dad and pitched a fit until Mom let her in.

I'm kind of wondering why he didn't get the issues with the first kid resolved before making another one.

Maybe he thought that the second kid would get the first one out of their bed. That may seem stupid, but in his position it may have seemed like a reasonable compromise. Also if he doesn't have any say in where he sleeps, he might not have any when it comes to having a baby either.

@chickia I wasn't referring to you when I mentioned 'issues'. You seem to have a pretty valid set of concerns. But you've got to remember that this couple had several years with one child before the other came along.

Jumping to conclusions that she's a harpy who's not interested in sex at all and just using him for his paycheck is kind of a stretch.

I agree with that, but from an outsiders perspective her behavior looks a lot like that of a woman who's no longer interested in her husband and is selfishly using him to finance her baby making.

"She's got an infant she's nursing round the clock, she's got a 6-year-old who would have to be surgically removed from her body, and she's got a needy husband, too. Not sexy!"

Having and nursing a baby is tough, yes, but the reality is throwing your husband a bone and putting out one or twice every week or two is really not *that* difficult or time-consuming, and sorry, but no matter how busy your life is as a new mom, if you have healthy children and you really can't find/make five minutes here or ten minutes there over the course of weeks, it's because you're trying not to. And that's either something you want to solve, or don't.

"The good news is that there's a decent chance that given a year or two of kindness and patience, the pilot light of female desire can be turned back on"

So he's supposed to wait around just in case maybe in a few years time, if he is really patient and kind, she might decide to act differently to how she's acted for six years? Six years! What was that they say about the definition of insanity again. She is not going to put out. Ever. LW, you are never going to have sex in your life ever again. The relationship is already over, and only one side actually wants to fix it.

"I think the idea that the husband 'take things in hand' for a 'mere' year or two...three on the outside while Mommy catches up on her sleep/pulls her head out of her rear to be laughable."

Why? Things change radically as kids get bigger, and it's different at least every six months. It may be that all the wife needs is six solid hours of sleep for a week and she'll be a new woman, not the pod person she is today. Or she may need happy pills. Either way, this is not some weird freak of nature--this is pretty normal stuff (except the 6-year-old roommate).

I forget where I read this, but for a lot of women, sex is like the top of a house of cards. The bottom layers might be things like 1) sleep 2) exercise 3) nutrition 4) clean enough house 5) feeling pretty and unless those bottom layers are safely in place, it's fruitless to expect to balance sex in there too. (I'm not sure if that was exactly the analogy, but it was along those lines.) Hence the advice to help with housework--a clean home actually is helpful in this respect. It makes a woman feel like she has some control over her environment and that she isn't a total mess herself, because in some sense, a lot of women identify with their homes.

Has anybody ever told you guys that female sexuality is complicated?

"...but the reality is throwing your husband a bone and putting out one or twice every week or two is really not *that* difficult or time-consuming..."

Have you ever had the flu or some other gastrointestinal ailment where you don't want to eat, see food, smell food, see dirty dishes, hear food talked about, or have anything to do with food? That's how a lot of new mothers feel about sex. It's not just that it's time consuming or difficult, it's also disgusting and repellent and doesn't smell good. Sorry guys!

This natural repulsion is how human biology prevents us from having babies 11 months apart very frequently. It's crude, but effective.

Amy -

None of what you say addresses the real problem: In fact, she refuses to even discuss it.

Foreclosing discussion of such an important issue means that pretty much everything else is off the table too.

When one party of a relationship shuts off communication, the relationship is pretty much over, no?

"I think that it's safe to say that if your wife suggests 'choreplay' as the solution to her waning libido, that it's a good indication that she's already done with sex. This isn't something that a woman with a normal sex drive would ever find arousing, unless she has some weird cleaning fetish."

Most guys don't understand choreplay (or foreplay for that matter). Here's the thing: it's not immediate. If you loaded the dishwasher and put the kids to bed once, then expected your wife to suddenly be sexually aroused, you haven't truly tried "choreplay".

I assure you that most women find it incredibly sexy when a guy regularly eases her chore load. Not to mention it gives her more energy for sex.

Will it work if she finds you repulsive - bad breath, bad attitude, or a beer belly? No. Nothing will. But that's not the fault of choreplay.

That's like the guy who gets shot down at a bar concluding that buying a girl a drink doesn't work.

@Amy P

The idea that feminine sexuality is as fragile as a house of cards is ridiculous. Humanity would have been extinct if it was that finicky.
That house of cards 1.-5. is an excuse invented by spoiled Western women, who, like that princess on a pea, made a fashion to complain about any minor inconvenience and blame men either directly or indirectly for all ills. For example, it didn't take you long to come up with that condescending
"Has anybody ever told you guys that female sexuality is complicated?"

When my first child was an infant, i heard a valuable saying... "don't do for your child(ren) - even once - something that you don't plan on continuing to do for the next 20 years".

That saying has stopped me many a time from commiting fatal errors, somewhat like LW's wife has done with the baby in the bed issue. If they have a 6 yr old in the bed, there are HUGE ages old problems. Addressing those problems with the 6 yr old is a good start. A 6 yr old will understand what you are saying; communicate with the child and lay down the game plan, if this is your situation; it works when the spouse is on board. This is not the LW's situation, not at all.

LW's situation here sounds like mutiny. With him having long ago moved to another bedroom, his wife telling him there's no negotiating, and sex a distant memory, i would have to agree with others here that the "marriage" part of their relationship is over. They now have a parenting partnership that is akin to being roomies raising kids. Good luck with that. Eventually, he will start looking elsewhere, as it's a natural human condition, to want love and sex, and the wife will have no one to blame but herself for her selfish attitude to parenting.

@Amy P! 6 YEARS! Come on!

You're fixated on the fact that she's got an infant, but this all predates the infant. He's not even complaining about the infant! Stop Blaming the !%#&@! Baby!! Jesus! What about all the time BEFORE she had the baby?

Has anybody ever told you guys that female sexuality is complicated?

OK. But why does it only get 'complicated' once women get what they want? Hmmm?

What if men did the same to women?

W:"Honey why aren't you going to work any longer?"

H:"The car is making a noise, I can't focus on work!!"

W:"HUH?!? You can't go to work because your car is making a noise?? Is it actually broken?"

H:"Well no. I just don't feel like a professional when I have a noisy car. It makes me feel like less of a man."

W:"I can't even hear anything, what noise?"

H:"OH it's very subtle and mysterious, maybe only men can hear it. But it's there. I can hear it in my soul."

W:"That's crazy, we're going to go broke!!"

H:"There it is! The noise! Your complaining makes me think of my noisy car and I feel like less of a man."

W:"Uh huh. No more daytime television for you mister".

I find it interesting how many people are quick to assign blame, but how few are willing to give constructive, productive advice.

He moved out of the bedroom. That was at best shortsighted, at worst passive aggressive. Probably a bit of both. If that is not how he wants his marriage to be in the long run, then he needs to take steps to correct it.

Lack of communication and sleep on both of their parts seems to be driving their problems. He can take steps to correct those issues.

He seems like a decent, but rather bewildered and somewhat frustrated new dad that does not know how to get where he wants to go but he knows he doesn't like where he's at.

And I don't give too much credence to the one sentence "In fact, she refuses to even discuss it" since we don't know how or how many times it was brought up. Both tired and cranky? Passive aggressive mutterings under his breath? Is there more information that Amy A. cut out in her editing for brevity?

Mom may be a walking zombie or a stone cold bitch. We don't know. There is more here we don't know than we do know.

How long has the 6 year old been in the bed? How old is the baby? Do hubby and wife communicate well on other issues? Are either of the children high needs? Does dad help out at all with the kids? Or does he expect the wife to do it all?

He can start simply with opening lines of communication.
He can take responsibility for putting the 6 year old to bed. Including bath, jammy selection and reading and cuddle time. And putting her back into bed when she moves in the middle of the night.

If mom is exhausted /overwhelmed whatever she is not going to demand those duties back if he's willing to take them on.

Mom may be depressed. She can get help for that.

I wouldn't assume the marriage is over nor would I recommend that course. A marriage is a lot of work to keep going.

Don't ignore the biological aspects of motherhood. She's got crazy hormone stew going on and will for months.

There is a lot going on here.

"You're fixated on the fact that she's got an infant, but this all predates the infant. He's not even complaining about the infant! Stop Blaming the !%#&@! Baby!! Jesus! What about all the time BEFORE she had the baby?"

They got her pregnant in the past year, somehow, so I'm assuming that up until that time, they were having sex off and on (although perhaps more off than on). He hasn't been completely frozen out for the past six years. The baby was probably the straw that broke the camel's back, as it often is. The second child is particularly problematic, in many ways. It would be interesting to get the wife's take.

"OK. But why does it only get 'complicated' once women get what they want? Hmmm?"

Postpartum women often only have eyes for their babies, and both older children and daddies may find themselves left out. I remember when my youngest was born, I was looking at my 2-year-old and thinking, hey kid, isn't it time for you to move out and get a job and an apartment? I didn't have mental room to deal both with the baby and the older toddler. Other women may have similar who-are-you-and-what-are-you-doing-in-my-bedroom feelings about their husbands. But with any luck that wears off, and mothers are usually able to rejoin the larger world. This is a temporary, hormone-saturated crazy phase. You just have to ride it out (or seek medical attention as appropriate).

I was brought up on a ranch, and mama cows are radically different when they have newborn calves. Normally docile cows are suddenly dangerous and may trample you if you get too close to their babies, but eventually they go back to their placid, cud-chewing usual selves. It's quite humbling to have experienced that mammalian hormonal rollercoaster numerous times oneself and to understand exactly how crazy a woman can get.

Be patient, be kind and seek medical help.

Okay. The only rational excuse I've heard from the women so far is the 'new baby' hormone thing. Yes, having a new pod makes mommy a little crazy and hits a 'don't get pregnant for a while' switch. IIRC, nursing also does that. (My wife and I had three pods of our own)

Funny. Even though my wife kept our individual children in our bed for up to two years for the first, she never shut me out, cut me off, or refused to discuss the sex issue. No, she doesn't believe in the 'family bed' but she did believe in sleeping and slinging a boob into a kids mouth from 6 inches made a HUGE difference.

So I've lived this life...except for the part where mommy is inviting more and more outsiders into the bed (though this isn't clear), nor evicting any of them (even for a night or a quickie) and is perfectly fine for hubby to move out ("When he gets over his snit, he can come crawling back.")

Just to note: for all those singing the 'Oh she's SOOO tired' refrain...sleeping with a six year old is NOT restful. If the LW's little bundle of six year old joy is shoving her feet into Daddy's face, I find it hard to believe she isn't doing it to Mommy too.

@lovelysoul

Most guys don't understand choreplay (or foreplay for that matter). Here's the thing: it's not immediate. If you loaded the dishwasher and put the kids to bed once, then expected your wife to suddenly be sexually aroused, you haven't truly tried "choreplay".

I assure you that most women find it incredibly sexy when a guy regularly eases her chore load. Not to mention it gives her more energy for sex.

I think we understand the incentives just fine, thank you very much.

Woman one is a lovely soul who is legitimately tired with hearth, home and kidlets running her down. Her hubby, after a hard days' work, busts his balls doing chores around the house for an undefined period (Days? Weeks? Months? Years?). Woman one happily puts out as 'she feels sexy now'

Woman two has a white collar job of limited hours and has a 'flexible' idea of hygeine. She, for unrelated reasons, turns down the sex spigot. Hubby does the same as case one and she, in true pavlovian fashion, decided that if (and only if) he pushes that button, she give him some sex.

Woman three isn't that tired, finds a guy who does housework sexy, reads the journals, cops the attitude, and a) is legitimately responding to choreplay AND b) is more then happy to ride that gravy train forever using the excuse "Women's sexuality is complicated" (What exactly did caveman iron for cavegirl to get her in the mood? Just asking)

To parphrase one of the above posters: Don't do something for the wife that you aren't prepared to do til menopause. All of the women above have every incentive to keep hubby 'paying' for sex, no matter their original motivations. You may not want to see it that way, but I certainly would.

Clue alert. I don't imagine women understand choreplay much either from the male side. If it takes (days, weeks, months, years) before she finally 'feels sexy' then more often then not, he is going to stop before she responds because there is no Return On Investment. And it's her own fault. No, I'm not saying I do a dish and should expect a hummer. But I am also not about to be a 'Stepford Husband' for the possibility of her considering a chance of eventually putting out either.

This is not a new concept. Guys have known for years to do a little more, help a bit more etc to try to 'get her in the mood'. Results have, historically, been spotty...probably because Aquarius was going through the Halls of Jupiter, or the phase of the moon was wrong, or Mrs. Trumble said the wrong thing to her yesterday. Cause it's complicated.

"He can take responsibility for putting the 6 year old to bed. Including bath, jammy selection and reading and cuddle time. And putting her back into bed when she moves in the middle of the night."

Again, as well-meaning as you are, Laura, I don't see that as an option for this LW, based on his letter. Maybe there's more here - there usually is - but Amy keeps the general context, and this is clearly a woman who has adopted the "co-sleeping" philosophy like a religion.

I've interacted with these women. Like I said, my Lamaze/LeLeche league coach was one, and you can no more tell them when to put a child in their own bed as when to wean one. Some have it in their heads that it must be 4...or 6...or 10.

That's why I said that LW needs to know her number. What age? This will apply for the first child as well as the second, so he'll need to do the math and figure whether he's really signed up for this whole deal.

But, like NicoleK said, these "family bed" folks seem to have lots of kids, so they must be having sex. My Lamaze coach has been married for 25+ years. Believing in the "family bed" is not, in itself, an automatic end to sex. There are plenty of other venues.

"I don't imagine women understand choreplay much either from the male side. If it takes (days, weeks, months, years) before she finally 'feels sexy' then more often then not, he is going to stop before she responds because there is no Return On Investment."

If that's the way it's viewed - like a business investment - then it's bound to fail.

Basically, women are skeptical of any man doing chores just to get laid more. My husband does chores because it's fair and considerate. We both try to do our share of the household chores. He doesn't dump any particular area of them on me, though we have our areas of expertise - mine cooking and his yardwork - but he's not above cooking a meal if I'm tired, and I'm not above cleaning up the yard.

More importantly, he puts his dishes away, throws his dirty clothes in the hamper (not on the floor), puts the toliet seat down, and generally makes sure that his existence doesn't make mine more difficult.

It's just called showing you care. That's really what "choreplay" is about, so, as frustrating as it may be to those guys who only see it as a means to an end, it won't work unless that is the message that's being relayed.

Basically, women are skeptical of any man doing chores just to get laid more.

Basically, I'm skeptical about women who says only a clean house will make her feel sexy as emotional blackmail. Sorry to say it goes both ways. The only way 'choreplay' works is if NEITHER party mentions it...otherwise the person who does is setting a price.

More importantly, he puts his dishes away, throws his dirty clothes in the hamper (not on the floor), puts the toliet seat down, and generally makes sure that his existence doesn't make mine more difficult.

This is called 'being a man'. Or perhaps 'being a human being' is more proper. And unless this guy is an Muslim or an Asian national, I'm betting he does a share of that already.

@ flydye45... there are women here (like me) who would take it (spoon sex) at 3am if their husband or partner would only just give it to them. No choreplay or foreplay necessary. Stop with your stereotyping already.

I have 2 children. Neither one of them was allowed beyond infancy into our bed. Both me and my husband worked full-time and shared household duties then, when the children were babies. It did not affect me at all in the sexual realm, ie: i still wanted it often (still do).

We are all individuals. If someone wants to put up barriers to a healthy relationship by using their children the way LW's wife does, then that's them. It doesn't condemn all women, not by a far shot.

Please excuse me if I wasn't clear.

SOME of the women on this board suggest 'choreplay'. Just as LS sees it as icky sex barter, a guy who had it mentioned to him would see it as sex blackmail.

I am addressing this tactic, not discussing all women. The incentives on 'choreplay' seem a bit one sided. "You do stuff for me and I will give you sex eventually."

And if Spartee, jared and some others are to be believed, other men see it the exact same way.

As a post script, i'd never ever heard of the word "choreplay" until i started reading this column.

Also, the moment anyone in a relationship starts keeping score, no matter what it is they're keeping score on, the jig's up. Scorekeeping is an intimacy killer.

Correction: Just as Lovelysoul sees it as icky sex barter if the guy engages in it purely for mercenary sexual purposes

As a post script, i'd never ever heard of the word "choreplay" until i started reading this column.

Same here. I find the attitude offensive from both sides. I happen to be out of town for large sections of time. When I am home, OF COURSE I spend my time helping with the chores, cooking, cleaning etc. That is a type of scorekeeping, but I don't think a negative one. She works hard at home when I'm not there. When I am, she should be able to relax.

Last night hubby forgot to take the garbage out. He was already in bed, so I took it out. Did I do it to kiss up and get something out of him? Of course not, I did it because he was tired and needed a bit of a break.

That's the way it works, people.

"As a post script, i'd never ever heard of the word "choreplay" until i started reading this column.

Also, the moment anyone in a relationship starts keeping score, no matter what it is they're keeping score on, the jig's up. Scorekeeping is an intimacy killer."

I'd never heard of it either, and it has a distasteful sound to me. Resentments build in close confines and the subsequent punishment doled out in many cases seems to be: "No nookie for you, Mister."

"SOME of the women on this board suggest 'choreplay'. Just as LS sees it as icky sex barter, a guy who had it mentioned to him would see it as sex blackmail."

I'd never heard of "choreplay" either until the other day, on this board, and, for the record, that's not how I feel. I've always had sex regardless. I did for 20+ years in an unsatsfying marriage. That was my "choreplay". It's a wifely duty in my view...whether we like it or not.

But I also think it makes sense for guys that if you want to keep things sexy with your wife you don't make her feel like your mommy. We women are wired to be nurturers and caregivers, so we'll naturally fall into that role if you let us.

So, if your wife finds herself picking up after you like she does the kids, it's going to flip that switch to "mommy" mode, which is diametrically opposed to "sexy" mode in a lot of women's minds.

I mean, we are probably evolutionarily programmed that way so we won't have sex with our sons. Right? So, that's a switch you don't want to flip.

And I agree with Bluejean that by the time a woman would have to mention this, it's often too late. The best thing to do is what I said above - just be considerate, pick up your own mess, and don't add to her load.

You may call that just being a man, and you're right, but, apparently, some guys need to be reminded because they act more like babies...then wonder why their wives aren't hot for them.

If a wife is avoiding sex because she's exhausted and resentful as a result of not getting any assistance from her husband, then I suppose "choreplay" could help. But if she's avoiding sex because she just doesn't want sex or just doesn't want sex with him, it wouldn't matter if he was a combo Betty Crocker/Dial-A-Maid/Supernanny.

That's true, Lizzie, but the only way for guy to find out is to try.

A lot of women don't believe it's their weight, or the fact they wear sweatpants and old T-shirts every day. But if your partner is suggesting that a change in your behavior or appearance would help spice things up in the bedroom, you've got to give it a shot. If it doesn't work, then at least you know you've given the relationship a fair chance.

Resentments are the number 2 killer of relationships (behind infidelity). If your partner is resentful over things that may seem minor to you, then you owe it to yourself (assuming you value the relationship) to listen. If it's truly minor, why not change it?

Too often, people get locked into these power battles over stupid stuff. "No, that's not it...yes, it is..."

Lovelysoul says: "So, if your wife finds herself picking up after you like she does the kids, it's going to flip that switch to "mommy" mode, which is diametrically opposed to "sexy" mode in a lot of women's minds."

"That's true, Lizzie, but the only way for guy to find out is to try."

Right you are--when you suddenly have two kids, family responsibilities need to be reallocated. If the split is the same as when they had one kid, she's probably barely alive right now, especially since she's taking this attachment parenting stuff really seriously--it's a model that puts a lot of stress on the mother. That said, (particularly when there's a baby in the house) sometimes the switch does get accidentally stuck on "mommy," even without chore issues.

I forgot to mention this, but not ovulating (which is probably the wife's situation as a heavy-duty breastfeeder) can shut off the libido for a lot of women. A return to a normal menstrual cycle can cause amazing improvements.

This discussion unfolded per the script. Too many of the gals depressingly kept banging on the "We must examine his failings first" meme, while the incredulous guys ask "WTF? People get married and all the sudden sex is a terribly complicated thing to have happen, akin to igniting a hydrogen bomb? That makes no sense."

And so it ever goes.

My utterly unscientific observation is that female libido goes down when they are comfy. Women don't think about it that way, and would deny it unto death, but it is the pattern I have seen. Long term relationships with a stable provider and kids make women comfy. So yeah, if you get into a LTR with a woman and have kids, typically you will get less sexual interest from her. That does not make women evil or lying or manipulative. That is just how they are, bless 'em.

By contrast, guys' sex drives do not wane in the same way for the same reasons. That does not make them stupid, babyish, selfish, cavemen or whatever. That is just how they are.

But the bottom line for guys--listen to your Uncle Spartee now, younger guys, since you will not hear this enough elsewhere--is this: your attendance in a LTR is conditioned upon the partner having cheerful, fun sex with you. Period. Make no apologies for that. Sex is a very, very big part of a LTR if you promised monogamy. Anyone who downplays or avoids that central fact or states that sex is complicated and requires all sorts of contortions on your part is avoiding a central condition regarding monogamous, long term relationships: sex your partner regularly and happily, or lose them. If your partner also believes that such a central part of a LTR is further conditioned upon a list of you doing things to their liking, but doesn't bother to expressly point those things out as and when things arise, then your partner is not really suited for a long term monogamous relationship. They are immature and expect something unreasonable: mind reading.

A grown-up who want to stay in a LTR speaks up to preserve the LTR relationships when the LTR is threatened; they don't retreat into slient-walled sex strikes.

In sum--I am looking at you, letterwriter--don't buy into the "choreplay" mindset, which tells you that you are responsible for her lack of libido. This mindset argues that you are not putting together the right combination of this or that objective effort in response to her subjective sense of things. Down that path lies years of foolish, wasted efforts and depressing marital unhappiness for you.

"she's probably barely alive right now"

Only a first world citizen would make such a laughably over the top statment about the hardly deadly responsibility of having a six year old and a younger kid of unknown age.

I think there's much truth to what Spartee said, as per my previous posts. I hesitate to make an absolute declaration that it's what's happening in this case as we don't know all the details of the LW's particular situation. As many have noted, however, the wife's refusal to even talk about it supports the contention that her husband's needs are way down on her priority list.

Lovelysoul wrote: ...if you want to keep things sexy with your wife you don't make her feel like your mommy.

Exactly. And this is essentially what "choreplay" boils down to. It's not (as others have suggested) that women are insisting that vacuuming is erotic. Instead, it's the idea that leaving your mess for your partner to clean up is a turn-off. Doing chores won't magically make a woman want to have sex. But leaving your socks, dirty dishes, etc around will make a woman who DOES want sex get turned off.

I think the only way around it is some kind of counseling. I think LW's wife needs to hear from an outsider that having the 6-year-old in the bed is NOT OK.

Really, it's heartbreaking. A writer got crucified a few years back for saying in the NYT that she loved her husband more than her kids. But this situation shows what happens when you love the kids more than your husband. Sad. Sad. Sad.

The resentment that he feels isn't good nor is the lack of intimacy. They need to work on communciation for sure and might need help to facilitate it.

But a letter from the LW's wife might say....

"My husband and I agreed on a family bed for the past 6 years and now he is suddenly changing his mind. I have a 6 month old and am not ready to go thru that particular fight at this point. He is also pushing me for sex every minute of the day and doesn't seem to notice I am dead tired and badly needing sleep. He just gets mad and runs away to the spare bedroom and types letters to strangers asking for advice. But instead of getting advice about love and patience he mostly gets a bunch of dumb ass remarks from seemingly bitter people who have obviously crashed and burned in their past relationships telling him how the marriage is already over and how he should kiss it goodbye."

There really are at least two sides to every story.

Life gets tough, having kids gets tough at times, marriage can be really tough. If you value your marriage then you need to be willing to work at it and compromise which means you don't always get what you want.

You mean like sex? Or intimacy? Or privacy? Or making decisions WITH your spouse?

Damn that man!

I'd like to reiterate that I believe that having sex is an obligation for both partners. Neither has the right to repeatedly deny the other sex. Anyone who does that is flat-out wrong and simply asking for their relationship to fail.

That said, what I'm getting at with "choreplay" is that this obligation can either feel like an obligation or be a pleasant experience.

Some guys here sound like all they want is a wife who'll spread her legs more often, and there is, of course, a place for the "quickie" in every relationship, and I agree with Amy that women should view that more favorably.

It seems particularly called for in this situation. Even if the wife is exhausted, she could at least lie there while he gets some satisfaction.

But, long-term, this can't be the style of sex most prevalent in the relationship either. That's all I mean when I suggest trying "choreplay" - not that wives have the right to demand vacuuming before sex. They don't. They should have sex with you anyway merely because they are married to you, and it's part of the deal.

But if you want sex to be PARTICULARLY GOOD, we are talking about different strategies. Ultimately, it's in each partner's best interest to make sure the other is satisfied with not only the quantity of sex but the quality.

"She's got an infant she's nursing round the clock, she's got a 6-year-old who would have to be surgically removed from her body, and she's got a needy husband, too. Not sexy!" ... "The good news is that there's a decent chance that given a year or two of kindness and patience, the pilot light of female desire can be turned back on" ... "I agree with the poster above who suggests the husband pitch in more."

So let me summarise: If the woman needs several years of kindness and patience and needs him to pitch in more with all the housework, that's normal and OK. If the man expects so much as a handjob now and again, he is unreasonably "needy". Got it. Amy P, I can only assume you're pretty hot in real life, that you can develop such an absurdly one-sided and profoundly entitled view of partnerships, and get away with it.

Exactly. And this is essentially what "choreplay" boils down to. It's not (as others have suggested) that women are insisting that vacuuming is erotic. Instead, it's the idea that leaving your mess for your partner to clean up is a turn-off. Doing chores won't magically make a woman want to have sex. But leaving your socks, dirty dishes, etc around will make a woman who DOES want sex get turned off.

SIGH

You just had to open that door, didn't you?

I would strongly suggest you read Amy's link since she says essentially the same thing I am thinking but in nicer tones.

Look, let's turn this around. I view recommending "choreplay" the same as telling a woman that she should probably dress a little nicer around her husband. You know, remove the pony tail and get out of those baggy sweats before he comes home.

Sure, he should have sex with you anyway, but he'll be a lot hotter for you if you shower and throw on some lipstick once in awhile...show him you're willing to make the effort.

I firmly believe wives should do this because men are visual. So, what is the equivalent for women? It's probably different for every woman, but chores are probably universally appreciated. Maybe some wives don't care about picking your dirty clothes off the floor - but if she's TELLING you that she's stressed and overwhelmed, and you just sit around ignoring her, then it's the same as the wife who refuses to spruce herself up a little.

This all builds resentment, which is unecessary. If you get to the point that you care more about being "right" than pleasing your partner, you're steering your relationship into a ditch.

Also in response to those demanding that men do major amounts of housework, I'd like to also add something that I know is terribly old-fashioned and 1950s-ish (but I think the truth really never goes out of fashion) - as demanding and tiring as parenthood is for women, it is not entirely a picnic for men either. While a woman is unable to work, somebody actually needs to, you know, pay for the roof over the head and food on the table and do things like organizing trips to hospital inbetween 16+ hours/day work demands and household management demands like fixing burst water heaters that happen to decide to burst the same day your wife goes into labor. I'm not bitching, just saying that this is a two-way street, and if you really view men as disposal utilities that are required to perform their function (i.e. spit out money and do household repairs and logistics and then shut up) then you deserve whatever kind of relationship you get, that's all. Men and women are both people.

What's also often lost and forgotten in today's "me me me" and puerile "men vs women, at war against each other 4eva, ha ha" and "women are sublimely special, worship at their feet" culture, is that relationships are supposed to be *partnerships*. A "partnership" involves working together towards a common goal, e.g. building a happy family (yes, building, it doesn't happen automagically) and household and raising happy and successful children. It means being aware of and sensitive to another person's needs and state, and helping carry the load when you see the other is exhausted and vice versa. It means being thankful for things the other person does. It means being aware that other people have needs/desires and trying to help meet them. It means listening to their views and inputs, and negotiating mutually satisfactory compromises and solutions to problems. It means placing at least some priority on the concerted maintenance of the quality of that partnership, which involves some effort. I don't get the impression LW has anything like that.

Agree also with Spartee. Unless a man literally never showers or something like that, it is not the man's fault if she isn't willing to put in some effort in the bedroom to keep the spark there. Saying that he "turned her off" just because he left dirty dishes around is totally absurd and a really lame excuse, until recently leaving dirty dishes for the woman was the norm, and again there are valid reasons for division of labor in the household. I'll gladly do 50% of the household chores when my wife is handling 50% of my sometimes 12 - 18 hour days working to pay for everything, but if I'm busy doing deadline work that brings in very good money and she's watching a soap, then until she develops the programming skills I have, sorry, she is doing the dishes, end of story. It doesn't make sense for us to give up good income so that I can do the dishes. Fortunately I have an awesome wife who isn't full of shit about this.

"Maybe some wives don't care about picking your dirty clothes off the floor - but if she's TELLING you that she's stressed and overwhelmed, and you just sit around ignoring her"

I mostly try keep an eye on how my wife is doing. If I see she's very tired or had a busy/difficult day with baby, for example, I will pitch in where I can with things like housework, or suggest we get take-out instead of cooking, or whatever. It's a partnership.

Why would an exhausted-with-infant person insist on sleeping with a 6-year-old? That's a good way to ensure less rest, not more.

Amy P: "she's probably barely alive right now"

Spartee: "Only a first world citizen would make such a laughably over the top statment about the hardly deadly responsibility of having a six year old and a younger kid of unknown age."

+1 .. unless those kids have some very demanding health problems, that represents an absurd lack of perspective on so many levels.

Why would an exhausted-with-infant person insist on sleeping with a 6-year-old? That's a good way to ensure less rest, not more.

Good question.

Another good one is: why is the sleep patterns of a woman so God Damned critical, but the same sleep needs of the husband re the six year old supposed to be dismissed or diminished in importance?

My baby had esophageal reflux which made it painful for him to lie flat, so for the first 9 months I slept sitting up in a chair with him sleeping on my chest. When my husband got home from a hard day's work he would take the baby for a couple of hours so I could take a nap. We were both tired and we still had sex.

I *have* noticed that many (not all) attachment-theory/family-bed proponents get REALLY defensive if someone disagrees with their parenting style. Her refusal to discuss the situation indicates to me that she's likely one of "those people." One of the huge problems is her "How dare YOU tell me how to raise MY kid" attitude toward her husband...'cause it's his kid, too. I agree that the discussion about exactly what age she thinks the kid should be in her own room absolutely must take place.

I was thinking about this last night- I mentioned above that our toddler sleeps with us, but that's mostly due to parental laziness on our part, not some parenting method or philosphy. Husband and I don't think that Baby A being in our bed is going to make her "more emotionally attuned" or empathetic or whatever. (Really, I believe the opposite- it's making her more dependant on us, less secure, and more convinced that the world revolves around what SHE wants). But LW's wife probably thinks that this is the kind of "nurturing, child-centered" kind of situation that's going to turn out a perfect little angel-genius- 'cause that's what Dr. Sears says.

As for this whole "choreplay" discussion, I'll throw this in: Doing chores isn't neccessarily a way to get yourself laid, but NOT cleaning up after yourself is a turnoff. A few of the other ladies pointed that out already. If I'm a stay-at-home Mom (and I'm not), of course I "get" that it's my job to keep the house clean and in order. BUT if my husband thinks it's OK to piss all over the toilet seat and bathroom floor, leave his shoes in the middle of the living room when he comes home, leave his boxers on the bathroom floor instead of the hamper, etc- that's disrespectful and a huge turnoff. And most women aren't interested in getting frisky with an overgrown child. We don't know if that's going on here, though.

@ahw BUT if my husband thinks it's OK to piss all over the toilet seat and bathroom floor, leave his shoes in the middle of the living room when he comes home, leave his boxers on the bathroom floor instead of the hamper, etc- that's disrespectful and a huge turnoff. And most women aren't interested in getting frisky with an overgrown child.

That dreaded BUT !
That's why most men find it useless to "talk" endlessly with a woman: she comes to any talk with the preconception that she is right and "let's talk" in feminise means "let's me explain you why you are wrong".

Advice to LW: you do not need to talk --- you've already done that and I bet more than once.
You need to give an ultimatum, but be sure to prepare the ground with a good lawyer counsel.

>>And most women aren't interested in getting frisky with an overgrown child.
Correct. But guess what? She married LW.
So, he is not likely to be "an overgrown child",
or she agreed to it prior to marrying him.
All the fantasies "to piss all over the toilet seat and bathroom floor, etc." are irrelevant to what is being discussed here. Spartee is correct: Choreplay is a way relieve oneself from the marital vow: I take you to be my husband to have and to hold, in sickness and in health, for richer or for poorer, and I promise my love to you...

I think a lot of the responders here place too great an emphasis on sex. Seriously.

*I know I am in the minority, but still...*

Sex is fun. Sex is nice. Sex is not essential. Five Finger Fanny can deliver whatever your spouse does not in the orgasm department.

Societal pressure on a man that is impotent must be crushing. Especially since y'all have decided that a spouses essential worth is tied up in delivering sex on demand.

Flydye wrote:

SIGH

You just had to open that door, didn't you?

What door? Not snarking, just genuinely confused.

My point (however badly expressed) was only to say that it depends on how you define "choreplay."

There are two definitions floating around here, leading to many misunderstandings:

Definition 1: Keeping the house sparkling and immaculately clean, thus filling the woman with desire. Bartering chores for sex.

Definition 2: Cleaning up your own shit so that your partner doesn't have to clean it up for you. People are gross, but you should make an effort to be less gross around the person you have sex with.

Mine is definition #2. I am more likely to be in the mood on days that I don't have to clean my BF's crusty toothpaste out of the sink, scoop his hair out of the shower hair trap and remove his dirty lunch dishes from the bedroom, thank you very much.

That said, of course it's ridiculous to think that a guy who is already pitching in will get more sex if he steam cleans the carpet. If it comes to that, then, yes, the woman is just making excuses.

Whatever, ahw (above at 10:07 AM) said it better.

And I'll say it again: kick the damn 6-year-old out the damn bed.

"What I remember ... was that there are bits in the bible about how you have to keep putting out for your spouse."

Yes.
I Corinthians 7:3-5 comes right out and says a woman is obligated to provide sexytimes for her husband and that a husband is obligated to sex her up as well. There is no provision for "if the laundry isn't piling up." (This inclusion in the first letter to the church at Corinth was the result of the men deciding that being chaste was more godly and their wives getting really pissed that their needs weren't met)

The only time the Bible says it is okay for a couple to deny each other sex is when it is 1) by mutual agreement, 2) to turn their energies to focusing on God, and 3) for a short amount of time and they come back together. Focusing on children is not an acceptable reason to deny sex to your spouse. (Biblically the focus should be on your spouse.)

Most of Song of Solomon, from his view and hers, is about putting out (or admiring breasts, thighs, and lips).

(I just wanted to confirm that yes, Amy, you remembered correctly)

"Sex is not essential."

I'm curious; how many men have you ever heard utter those words?

“Sex is fun. Sex is nice. Sex is not essential.”

Something similar can be said about chocolate or luxury item shopping.

Yet if a husband were to unilaterally declare to his wife that she wasn’t allowed to eat chocolate anymore or go shopping for fun but non essential items I think I know what everyone here would call him. They would call him controlling and abusive.

So while I agree that sex is fun, it is nice, and it is not essential in the sense that you won’t die without it, that really isn’t the bar when determining proper behavior within a marriage.

If people wanted to live a life where they avoided fun things, nice things, and basically anything that wasn’t essential we would not have any of the things that we now consider part of a normal modern life.

Your above argument would work better if you were talking about the Amish and not people who use computers which can also be defined as fun, nice and not essential.

I'm sorry I missed this when it was new!

Just wanted to say as someone who did the whole attachment thing, having kids sleep in your bed doesn't mean you can't have sex! If one room has the main big bed, set up some alternative sleeping space elsewhere and use it for both, as & when.

My advice for this Dad would be to tell his wife how much he values being intimate with her, and figure out how they can get some alone time that suits them both.

Sex is not essential. My husband has ED and is 9 years older then myself (in his 50's).

My personal opinion is that if a couple is using sex as a foundation or cornerstone of their marriage, they better be aware it can topple all too easily. As part of an otherwise nurturing and mutually supportive relationship? Great! It shouldn't be the one thing that makes or breaks a marriage.

Sex is the spice in the dish, not the meat. So to speak. IMHO.

Here's one, Lizzie. Sexual release is essential, but letting Mama Thumb and her four daughters take care of that matter is a lot better idea than putting your kids through a divorce because you're not getting any.

"Sex is fun. Sex is nice. Sex is not essential. Five Finger Fanny can deliver whatever your spouse does not in the orgasm department."

If that is a spouse's attitude, then that spouse should have absolutely zero objection to their sex-hungry spouse openly having a lover on the side.

After all, if sex is so unimportant to *you* (in the general sense of you, not you you), then you cannot really object when your partner goes out to have that totally unimportant thing with someone else.

Spartee, you are very wrong. My husband I took vows. For better or worse. For richer or poorer. Love, honor and all that stuff.

How can behaving without honor be something I or my spouse would not mind? Betraying trust is not something a committed, honorable spouse does. It is just wrong.

It does say a lot about your ethics that you feel it is acceptable.

I agree with LauraGr. Should that same justification be used if a man develops ED and can't function as well or as frequently as he used to?

We live in a very spoiled culture, where everyone whines over whatever they aren't getting "enough" of. Families break up over this all the time, and are they better off? Certainly not the kids.

So many of the people I've known who left long-term marriages in search of more or "better" sex are alone now, probably having a lot less sex than when they were married. It's sad.

As much as I believe we need to tend to our partner's physical needs, I also think there's too much focus on sex. It's a part of a loving relationship, but shouldn't be the end all/be all. Ultimately, we're all going to age and have a lot less sex. There's got to be more than that to hold a couple together.

It is strange that the LW's situation brings to mind the famous maxim: "Those who long for peace must prepare for war."

Lovelysoul, I agree absolutely that a couple needs more to hold them together, but cutting a guy almostly entirely off is usually not going to have a good outcome. Like everything else, it's a matter of degree. There's a difference being dissatisfied with twice a week, twice a month, or twice a year. In the LW's case, they've gone from not very frequent to "verging on sexless".

It has, however, made for an interesting conversation here.

Leaving physical infirmity aside, if one partner unilaterly decides the sex is over, I don't see betrayal or dishonor in what Spartee is suggesting. He used the word "openly". If the withholding partner says sex isn't important, then it isn't. It can't be both important and unimportant!

I think sneaking off to have an affair is betrayal and dishonors your vows, but so is cutting off sex.

Lizzie, I agree with that too. Cutting someone off entirely, without any valid reason (such as illness) is totally wrong. LW's wife is being unreasonable.

But I also agree with Laura that there seems to be too much focus on sex. We live in a culture that makes it seem that everyone else is having more frequent and hotter sex than we are, which sadly leaves many couples to destroy marriages that would likely survive if they took a more practical and positive view.

Twice a week with someone who has shared your ups and downs, raised a family with you, and is a kind, moral person is usually much better than chasing the illusion of perfect sex every night.

Like I said, so many people I've known have dumped otherwise good, long-term marriages over this, and many of them are now having less sex and are less happy than when their families were intact.

I cannot believe the immediate jump to divorce of many of the replies. The LW does not mention how old the baby is but it can take months and up to a year for sex to stop being painful after having a baby. Many nursing mothers are exhausted and their hormone levels are not what they should be. The six year old needs to be in her own bed. I do not advocate getting a whole new bed but taking the child to pick out new bedding and part of that bedding should be a child safe heated mattress pad.

That of course assumes you are both working together. If she will not discuss the matter, it is time to calmly tell her you want to go to joint counseling. A six year old in the bed is a troubling matter but not bring willing to discuss the matter is much worse.

You and your wife need to learn to be a parenting team and not MOMMY cuddling us in the "family" bed and daddy down the hall.

All of this anger and bitterness about this issue is startling. I am sorry you guys seem to have had such nasty women in your lives.

"Twice a week with someone who has shared your ups and downs, raised a family with you, and is a kind, moral person is usually much better than chasing the illusion of perfect sex every night."

Absolutely. For the now divorced friend I spoke of earlier it was down to about 3-4 times a year. And even then it was, "hurry up, aren't you done yet?" Divorce is hell, but I can understand how desperate many of these men must become in such a situation.

It is my life style choice, OK?

It's your lifestyle choice to sound stupid all the time? Well, at least you're self-aware.

"Absolutely. For the now divorced friend I spoke of earlier it was down to about 3-4 times a year. And even then it was, "hurry up, aren't you done yet?" Divorce is hell, but I can understand how desperate many of these men must become in such a situation."

What's odd to me is how these people end up married when there's such incompatibility in their sexual appetites and expectations. I'm not sure I buy that there's such a major loss of libido in these women once they are married. I suspect the signs were there well in advance.

LW is an example of this. He admits they've never had lots of sex, yet sex is apparently quite important to him. Why did he marry this woman?

I think some women do lose interest, become unattracted to their spouse, or pretend initially to have more libido than they actually do, for a variety of reasons. As for the LW, he probably weighed up the pluses and minuses and thought he could live with amount X, but now amount X is shrinking to amount never. The couple has to work together to settle on a definition of regular sex they can both live with. Refusing to discuss it is the same as one party making a unilateral decision, and that's not going to cut it.

Read through all the comments. One aspect of this, that was a red flag to me, was that there are 5+ years difference in age between the two children.
My kids were two years apart, and by the time they were two and four respectively, they looked to each other to provide a good part of their emotional needs. If one had a nightmare, I would find them in the other kids room in the morning.
When you have kids more than four years apart, it is like having two only children, and if the eldest is spoiled and indulged, they can turn into a jealous monster pretty quickly. If the eldest is not spoiled, the elder kid often becomes a responsible martyr trying to discipline a little hellion, as the worn out parents retired from the field of battle. And if there is any power vacuum with the parents, a lot of kids will naturally exploit it. This poor guy is probably looking at another twelve to 18 years of hell, as the family dynamics continue to deteriorate.

LauaraGR,

I sympathize with your issue. But there is a vast difference between loving someone who can't perform but who would if he could and having someone who supposedly loves you cuts you off because other people and issues are much more important.

This is feels like the later.

I think a lot of the responders here place too great an emphasis on sex. Seriously.
Posted by: LauraGr

I think you are doing it wrong

Most of Song of Solomon, from his view and hers, is about putting out (or admiring breasts, thighs, and lips).

Posted by: Elle

Theres also the gang bang

I don't think that the LW's complaint is entirely about sex. He hasn't been able to sleep in his bed for, what I'm assuming is, six years. This is likely a metaphor for their entire relationship.

for example - Beyond that, I'd like to get back to sleeping in the same bed with my wife without getting a small foot planted in my face.

All of this anger and bitterness about this issue is startling. I am sorry you guys seem to have had such nasty women in your lives.

I think that you're reading too much into the comments here. You're also inserting facts that aren't in evidence. Amy is pretty good about condensing these letters and highlighting the significant elements. So there's no reason to assume that this is all due to breast feeding, chores, or tik-tik flies, or any of the other excuses that are being thrown out here. She's unilaterally mandated that all of the children will sleep in her bed indefinitely and he'll sleep alone. She'd kicked him out of his own bed. It's been this way for SIX YEARS. That's all that is relevant.

The reason that I think men get upset about this scenario, and the typical female response which is evident here, is that it's very common. The LW's case is a little extreme, but similar to what many men experience once they have kids. Their wives lose interest in them and try to dominate the relationship with their kids. The husband is then trapped, having to support someone who doesn't care for them and fearing that if they confront the situation that they'll end up divorced and losing contact with their kids.

My own mother has warned me about this sort of thing. She'd basically told me that if I waited to get married, that I was likely to find myself marrying an older woman with issues who only wants to get married to have children. We'd only have a couple of years together before she had to get pregnant and then there was a good chance that I'd be stuck taking care of 'her children'. So it's not just men who recognize that this phenomenon is a common problem for couples.

Sex is fun. Sex is nice. Sex is not essential. Five Finger Fanny can deliver whatever your spouse does not in the orgasm department. -LauraGr

If that is a spouse's attitude, then that spouse should have absolutely zero objection to their sex-hungry spouse openly having a lover on the side. -Spartee

Spartee, you are very wrong. My husband I took vows. For better or worse. For richer or poorer. Love, honor and all that stuff. -LauraGr

I agree with LauraGr. Should that same justification be used if a man develops ED and can't function as well or as frequently as he used to? -lovelysoul

Spartee is right, if a spouse refuses to put out on the grounds that it isnt important they have no grounds upon which to object.

LauraGr, according to those vows the spouse should be putting there refusal to do so constitutes a breach of those vows. If one party is free to ignore the vows why isnt the other?

Lovelysoul, a guy with ED can take pills, use a pump, and even if for valid reasons he is unable to do that he can at the very least build one of these in his garage,

http://www.google.com/search?q=fucking+machine&hl=en&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-Address&prmd=ivns&source=lnms&tbm=isch&ei=qslNTv-fCYPisQLzwNXtBg&sa=X&oi=mode_link&ct=mode&cd=2&ved=0CBUQ_AUoAQ&biw=1280&bih=631&uss=1

and be ready to stand by with a dildo on a sawzall if need be

"That of course assumes you are both working together. If she will not discuss the matter, it is time to calmly tell her you want to go to joint counseling. "

I doubt that she'll go, because as far as she's concerned, nothing is wrong. She's got the kids she wants; she's in complete control of the household; hubby is paying the bills and she doesn't have to put up with any of that icky wifely-duty stuff. She knows that he has no legal or social options that won't result in his destruction.

"All of this anger and bitterness about this issue is startling. I am sorry you guys seem to have had such nasty women in your lives."

My first wife was a borderline. I can spot the type now, but I couldn't then. She didn't want to go to therapy either. She had her boy-toys and someone to pay for her partying every night; she didn't have to work, and she had me paying her bills. As far as she was concerned, life was perfect! Fortunately I got out of that before any children came along, and it only cost me about $15K and a year of fighting off the creditors she'd left in her wake.

Neither sex has a monopoly on narcissism. That's all I'm trying to say.

"LauraGr, according to those vows the spouse should be putting there refusal to do so constitutes a breach of those vows. If one party is free to ignore the vows why isnt the other?"lujlp

Honestly... I have no idea what you mean by this.

Spartee said if one of the spouse cuts off sex because they dont think its important, the other spouse if free to find sex elsewhere.

You said he was wrong for suggesting that.

My point was refusing sex is a violation of those same vows. So I was asking you if one spouse if free to ignore their vows why isnt the other.

LauraGr, lujlp, and Spartee

I think you are talking past each other.

Spartee says that if a wife unilaterally cuts her husband off from sex because it isn't important to her, she has no beef if husband then goes out publically and gets a lover. She signed on to provide a service to her partner (i.e. sex) and she is reneging.

Laura is putting it in her personal context. If she went wandering because her husband has issues, then she feels (correctly IMO) that she would be betraying him. Sickness and health. It isn't a choice; it's a circumstance over which he has no control.

lujlp happens to agree with Spartee. If one person stops putting out willfully, then they get what's coming to them.

I happen to agree with Spartee and lujlp with about that reaction to that situation.

I also agree with Laura because the situation she is discussing is NOT the situation of someone acting willfully; anymore then a wife in a body cast is 'willfully' breaking her vows because she can't get her husband off.

This leads to two gray situations

Sit 1: What do you do in a Terry Shivo case? Or one where intercourse is painful for the one spouse, so much so they can't engage? At what point do they discuss other options? Does the sickness vow cover permanent celibacy/masturbation?

Sit 2: In a married couple, one partner evinces no interest in sex, but 'puts out' grudginly, occassionally and with little to no pleasure. Would it be wrong for the other spouse to cut them off?

Worthit,

It isn't that we've run into so many nasty women. It is that the LW's wife seems to be quite nasty enough to warrent such a reaction.

1. She is creating an environment where a man cannot comfortably sleep with his spouse

2. She refuses to talk about it or come up with a compromise.

3. She seems to be finding less sex as a bonus in that she is not making any efforts to get around the 6 year old logistical problem.

Now, down at the Y, sex may be painful. There are other options, but somehow, none of that seems on the menu if the LW is to be believed.

How exactly to you measure her character?

Sex is part of a package, one which includes household cleanliness compatibility, financial budgeting compatibility, parenting style compatibility, etc. Sex is only one of many things, but it is still in the package.

People might be willing to sacrifice on one issue for perfection in the other issues. On the other hand, when something is off-kilter in one category it can throw the other ones off as well.

So yeah, someone being a total pig and the other person being a total cleaning martyr is going to throw the sex off-balance, too. But by the same token, someone not being sexy or sexually available can make the other person not want to pitch in as well.

There's a domino effect.

I think the main take-away point from this thread is don't be a douche. In any category.

This leads to two gray situations

And a subset of situation 1: What if the "inability" to put out is psychological (i.e., depression) rather than physical, like being in a full-body cast?

We seem to have far less compassion and understanding for people struggling with psychological problems than we do physical, even though they are frequently harder to assess and treat.

I'm not suggesting this woman has depression. I don't know enough to determine that. But this thread has wandered into some more general territory.

At any rate, since the wife isn't the one who wrote in, advice to her is pointless. (And we don't get the opposing side in any of these letters.) Amy's advice is good: He needs to figure out a way to at least get her to the discussion table. If he's going to start out cynically assuming she won't budge under any circumstances, then he might as well line up the divorce lawyer now.

Marriages have survived worse than this scenario and gone on to be happy. I see no good reason why this guy should destroy his marriage and his children's lives because his early attempts to solve the problem failed.

And for those suggesting it: Cheating on her is a stay of execution. When (not if, when) he is caught, she will own him.

Assuming she has been a good wife to him apart from this, it's worth it for him to try. Even in good marriages, the effort is not always 50/50. Sometimes it's 100/0, then flips to 0/100.

"The reason that I think men get upset about this scenario, and the typical female response which is evident here, is that it's very common. The LW's case is a little extreme, but similar to what many men experience once they have kids. Their wives lose interest in them and try to dominate the relationship with their kids."

I think the "typical female response" here is that of suggesting ways to possibly fix the marriage before bailing on it.

Guys are usually the "fix it" people, but, oddly, in relationship scenarios, it seems that so many are ready to say, "Hey, the handwritings on the wall, buddy...give it up!"

We could certainly shorten these threads by offering this kind of advice whenever any LW is married to a douche - and sometimes we do - but there are kids in this situation, so I think that's irresponsible advice.

It's not that we don't see what a bitch the wife is being. I do at least. And it may be that she is a natural-born bitch, and there's nothing that can be done. But naturally-born bitches are pretty easy to spot early on.

My son is dating a bitch. At first, she seemed sweet, though perhaps a little arrogant on certain topics, but now, I've concluded she's a ball-busting bitch (she even complained openly at my recent wedding about everything from the music to the food...how SHE would've done it all differently).

But he's enamored with her. They break up and make up. He even knows she's a "bad girlfriend" (his words), but still he goes back...despite his mama's warnings (listen to your mamas, boys! We can spot these bitches!).

All I'm saying is that these scenarios don't just happen in a vaccume. If my son marries this girl(over my dead body), he will be this LW in a few short years.

LW's wife is either a natural-born bitch, or she was once a sweet, giving woman, who has become sleep-deprived and slightly insane after having kids.

LW knows which one she is. If she's the former, there's really no hope. He should take Luj's initial advice. But if she's the latter, then some of this typical female advice might help.

This dicussion has roughly broken down along the lines it usually does.

Some segment of the people take a direct, problem-solving approach. They suggest talking directly to the spouse, identifying the problem and requesting direct answers how to address whatever previously-unexplained barriers to "normal" sexual relations exist. Then, if the denied spouse can address the barriers, that spouse works to remove the barriers. But if this fails to resolve the problem, the options are either divorce or stay married while getting sex elsewhere. This is a typically solution-oriented approach to a problem.

Another segment of the population balks at such direct problem-solving in these circumstances. Instead they consider it an opportunity for therapy-like inquiry of subjective feelings and root-cause emotional constructs causing a lack of interest in sex. (Please note, that approach would likely not be tolerated if a *guy* denying sex wanted to talk about his feelings, of course.)

That therapay approach involves a sub-inquiry that is really not an inquiry, but an subtle accusation: is the sex-seeking spouse's failings as a spouse a cause of a loss of libido? In instances of abuse or extreme sexual deviancy, this inquiry/accusation is spot on. But most marriages do not involve abuse or extreme sexual deviancy, and neither do most sexless marriages, I would bet.

The theragy approach has two failings in terms of actually resolving the issue, I think. It allows the sexless an "out", permitting them to put it on someone else, rather than stare hard at themselves, to determine if there is a physical or other cause (age? general lack of interest?).

That response is what I deride as the "choreplay" dead end: men are invited to spend much useless time in life trying to satisfy unquantified, utterly subjective feelings about libido--and here is the important part, folks--that have no demonstrated support as causitive factors in reducing female libido. Rather, choreplay is presented mainly because it is a convention of the era: women feel less sexy because men are not doing chores.

Against this idea you need to remember that waning female libido in a relationship is a common enough occurrence that folk wisdom is filled with humor about it. This did not come around only because women feel they are washing too many dishes in the modern era.

And rather than participate in pointless exercises in blame-shifting, a guy is better advised to acknowledge what has happened: a predictable and common drop in the female spouse's general interest in sex with her husband.

Once that hard fact is acknowledged, of course, the issue of continuing in the marriage arises, if the drop in sex is severe enough. That causes a defensive reaction in people heavily invested in the idea that a man MUST stay, and that any freedom on his part to opt out in favor of a more fulfilling sex life is threatening. We see that defensive reaction in many postings above.

But guys have that freedom, sort of. It is conditioned upon the unpleasant experience of less time with kids and rough financial treatment by a system geared toward extracting resources from men.

Now, all of this is broadly stated, of course, so any dicussion is always going to be laced with some person saying, "Yes, but I know a 7 foot tall Asian woman, so your generalities about race, gender and height are bogus!" Yeah, yeah.

But members of society are typically better off when they recognize what is likely giving rise to the circumstances they enounter, and what society builds up around them to either keep them there or help them out.

Currently, society is geared towards keeping middle-class men in sexless marriages with the legal rules for divorce,because such men are least likely to be able to afford leaving either financially or emotionally. Women buttress those incentives with the social messages that men are to blame in the first place for sexless marriage.

All I want to say is, guys, see things for what they are, not what people say they are. Then make your choices. You don't have to play by the rules if you conclude they stacked them against you to begin with.

I agree with Laura that there is probably a lot going on here. I used to be married to a noncommunicator. When I had a problem, he told me that it wasn't really a problem. Problems mounted, but we couldn't fix them because he wouldn't agree there was a problem, therefore there was nothing he had to change. He understood that I had a problem, but didn't get that "we" had problems - until I fanally moved out. (Then he got a girlfriend - not unlike the guy in the country music song.)

So, from my experience, I have to wonder if this husband really is communicating with his wife, or if he doesn't hear her. She may be creating/allowing a "problem" that he WILL notice as a way to get his attention and start addressing her issues. But he only sees this as a problem of a 6 year old in the bed.

I think that counseling is absolutely necessary if they want to get things back on track. She may help him solve his problem if he will help her solve hers. And, at this point, what could it hurt?

To summarize Spartee's treatise,
women (Goddess excluded) are invested in the idea of a man being a slave of his wife/ex-wife.
When hard-to-dispute arguments that challenge this idea surface, women give "Talkplay" treatment to all males still having balls. The idea behind this play is to drown any reasoning in irrelevant minutiae along with not-so-subtle accusations of men being by nature stupid when it comes to relationships and therefore shall take advice of women.
Men, boys and Romans, do not lend them your ears!

Spartee said in old times people would laugh at the thought of a woman with a baby and kid being tired. This is untrue.

Rousseau admonishes the tired women of Paris who turn their children over to wetnurses because they are too weak and tired to nurse them. (Back then it wasn't breast or bottle, it was my breast or her breast or maybe a goat's breast). Wetnurses were very prominent back in the day, mainly because nursing is exhausting and feels like a full-time job. For many women, it WAS a full-time job.

Historically, many cultures have a period of confinement for a new mother following a birth, often one month or 40 days.

I've already mentioned Alcott's "Good Wives" on this forum, in which Meg deals with the childcare-housework-husband balance.

Maternal fatigue is not new.

lovelysoul: What's odd to me is how these people end up married when there's such incompatibility in their sexual appetites and expectations. . . . I suspect the signs were there well in advance. LW is an example of this. He admits they've never had lots of sex, yet sex is apparently quite important to him. Why did he marry this woman?

"Why did they marry each other in the first place?" is a question that could be asked of a lot of couples (and not just in regard to sex.) My parents were a perfect example. Very incompatible people. I remember my mother telling me that her mother told her "He's a very nice man but I don't think he's a good match for you" so her mother saw the incompatibility. I suspect many of my mother's friends did too. But they got married anyway. Why? Probably for the reason most people with serious incompatibilities do: they were "in love" and that state of being "in love" caused them to either ignore the differences or else think everything would work out once they got married.

Lovelysoul says: "I think the "typical female response" here is that of suggesting ways to possibly fix the marriage before bailing on it.

"Guys are usually the "fix it" people, but, oddly, in relationship scenarios, it seems that so many are ready to say, "Hey, the handwritings on the wall, buddy...give it up!""

Right. One year! Is it really so hard to give this thing one year, when the situation may just be temporary? For comparison, child support would last another 17 years. There's no risk to waiting and making the best of the situation--being kind to his (hopefully temporarily) crazy wife, being a good daddy, seeing a marriage counselor (perhaps by himself) and reading some of the stuff I mentioned upthread (Julia Grey's website and Vicki Iovine on the first year of motherhood).

Given the nation's tragic shortage of nymphomaniacs, if LW leaves his wife and starts over again, he may accidentally wind up with what he thinks of as another undersexed woman (or "another woman" to put it more concisely).

Caroline says: "So, from my experience, I have to wonder if this husband really is communicating with his wife, or if he doesn't hear her. She may be creating/allowing a "problem" that he WILL notice as a way to get his attention and start addressing her issues. But he only sees this as a problem of a 6 year old in the bed."

Neither of these people seem like amazing communicators. Maybe it's time for the cliched date night, taking her hands in his, making soulful Leonardo DiCaprio/Twilight vampire eyes, and asking, "Sweetheart, I love you and I love the kids. How do you think we can have a better marriage?" And then listen--maybe even take some notes. And keep listening. (I'm mostly joking about the DiCaprio and Twilight, but there's a reason why millions of grown women love that stuff.)

Also, now that I think of it, the 6-year-old is getting big enough to send to grandma's or auntie's for a sleep-over or a road trip with grandma and grandpa. Let grandma and grandpa sort her out. If the geography works, LW can get his mom to suggest it to the 6-year-old (promising pancakes and TV) and before you know it, they'll be practically alone at home maybe one night a month. (When you're used to having two kids all the time, having just one is like a vacation.) And even without helpful local relatives, in a couple of years, the daughter will be getting invites to sleepovers.

lovelysoul, after finishing my post, I just read your post about your son who knows his girlfriend is "bad" but he's enamored with her anyway.

"Spartee said in old times people would laugh at the thought of a woman with a baby and kid being tired."

Citation?

NicoleK Says:

"Rousseau admonishes the tired women of Paris who turn their children over to wetnurses because they are too weak and tired to nurse them. (Back then it wasn't breast or bottle, it was my breast or her breast or maybe a goat's breast). Wetnurses were very prominent back in the day, mainly because nursing is exhausting and feels like a full-time job. For many women, it WAS a full-time job."

So who exactly was Rousseau admonishing then?

It certainly wasn't the "tired women of Paris" because you admit that "For many women, it WAS a full-time job.".

Somehow there were women who nursed their own babies and then nursed the babies of wealthy women as a career. Those women certainly weren't "tired".

So who were the "tired women" Rousseau was talking about? They were the aristocratic wealthy women who simply couldn't be bothered with a task such as nursing their own children so they passed it on to a peasant who probably wasn't even paid very well.

The women Rousseau is talking about weren't too tired and weak to nurse... they were too spoiled to nurse.

There is a difference.

I'd be willing to bet that the wetnurses were far more exhausted and worked much harder than the wealthy women they worked for.

"Spartee said in old times people would laugh at the thought of a woman with a baby and kid being tired."

Why do I suspect that the guys who go on and on about how wimpy modern women are would whine a lot if they were left by themselves with said baby and 6-year-old for the weekend, let alone for a 50-hour week?

If you think about it, modern guys are pretty wimpy, too, if not more so. A lot of you guys never pick up anything at work heavier than a laptop. Mechanization has made even many blue collar jobs physically much easier. Instead of pushing a lawnmower, a maintenance guy might be riding around on a mower with cupholders, and a lot of bigger farmers have AC in their tractor cabs now. At work these days, you're unlikely to lose a hand in a sawmill, have a tree fall on you while logging or get trapped in a mine collapse, because fewer and fewer American men have that kind of job anymore. On average, it is much safer and easier to be a guy than it used to be.

@So who were the "tired women" Rousseau was talking about?

Those compassionate ladies who tired themselves deciding which cake the poor shall eat if they lack the bread.

It is worthy to know what Rousseau did to his own children, BTW.

Yeah, he was a total hypocrite. But the point is, motherhood has always been seen as tiring, and women of privilege have historically outsources.

Wet nurses, btw, didn't always nurse their own babies in addition to their charges (though many did), they often had to give them up. Other women became wet nurses when their babies died. Or they nursed their first child, but maintained their milk supply (I was told by my lactation consultant that they would hire toothless old men to suck their boobs between babies to keep up supply... how's that for a job!) and went on to their next charge without having a new baby.

The point is, that motherhood being tiring isn't a new idea. Mainly, because having a baby is tiring.

IMO the joy and fun waaaaaaaay outweighs the fatigue. But that's me.

And of COURSE the wet nurses worked harder.

Citation:

"Only a first world citizen would make such a laughably over the top statment about the hardly deadly responsibility of having a six year old and a younger kid of unknown age."

... in response to someone saying the wife was feeling practically dead, which I interpreted to mean "dead tired"

If she is having problems that have nothing to do with him (depression, etc.), then sorting them out can give them both a better sex life.

If he IS doing something that's contributing to her lack of libido, that's worth examining, too. (Note I didn't say "if it's his fault." Marriage isn't like Monopoly, where there is a winner and a loser, and the person who is "right" wins.) Not figuring out the root problem could lead to a behavioral fix, meaning, she would comply with his requests for sex, but I'm assuming he wants her to enjoy it, too. I don't see how simply getting her to have sex with him and getting their child out of the bed is the best solution if she's resentful and angry about it.

I notice a lot of the men here seem to be trying to solve a problem he hasn't presented. The solution for wanting out of your marriage is getting a divorce, and he hasn't said that. The solution for wanting your child out of your bed and having more sex with your wife is finding a way to get these things.

As for examining what their motivations might be: Well, that's half the fun of this blog. I don't truly care whether either of these people ever has sex again, and he's not writing to me for advice.

I think that sex, which is a VERY important part of a couple's life, in this case is not the only thing you should be worry about. Putting this as clear as possible, I have to say, you don't have a marriage and never will. She is the boss, and things have to be done her way. That, my friend, is not what marriage is all about. The kids is the perfect excuse for her not to have sex. If she does not want to, she has a problem. She needs therapy or you need a divorce. Good luck!

As a new mom myself, there's nothing more annoying than the many child-rearing philosophers arguing with each other over what's acceptable and what's not. Add to that the many haters on here who either have been burned by failed marriages, or who are embittered by alimony/custody issues/lack of a sex life, or who are man/woman haters in general.

Enough.

As a parent, YOU MUST DO WHAT WORKS FOR YOU. Not all kids are the same, just as not all adults are the same.

Obviously this arrangement does NOT work for the LW. So he needs to HELP FIX IT.

Some posters on here offered practical tips, and here's my own. Rather than plan a talk with your (no doubt exhausted) wife about what she's NOT doing, or what she's doing wrong, YOU create a reasonable bedtime ritual with your 6 year old. She needs her daddy, and will listen to you. You must be consistent in order for it to stick. While you're doing this, have a talk with your wife about the many benefits of your daughter gaining her independence from the family bed. You will have to get her on board for this to work. To get her on board, YOU volunteer to do the work with your daughter.

As an independent woman who went from being self-employed and a 50/50 contributor to my household to a pretty much SAHM with no regular income, it's a tough transition to mommyhood. I HATE having to ask my husband for 20 bucks. But you know what? I work 16 hours a day chasing around an 8 1/2 month old. Not to mention middle-of-the-night duty every night. And to be honest, I envy my husband's ability to leave the house alone, converse with adults, and earn a paycheck. I sometimes find myself fighting a feeling of resentment, especially when I am tired and need his help with the baby while I cook dinner, when he'd rather unwind after work and watch Youtube videos. Luckily we always talk it out and work together to keep each other happy. It takes sacrifice on both our parts.

There could be a million reasons why LW's wife doesn't seem to want intimacy with him. One possible one could be that she's tired and he needs to stop thinking of his own needs and help her with the kids' needs. This kid NEEDS to become independent enough to sleep in her own bed. He can help with that - this is where he should start.

jared: The LW's case is a little extreme, but similar to what many men experience once they have kids. Their wives lose interest in them and try to dominate the relationship with their kids. The husband is then trapped, having to support someone who doesn't care for them...

While I think that men love their kids, I think that women, in general, place a much higher priority on their kids than they do on their partner, compared to men. And I don't think this is surprising, given that women are the ones with such an intimate physical connection to their children.

@Lori I work 16 hours a day chasing around an 8 1/2 month old.

You are doing it wrong.
There is absolutely no need, if your child is having some very serious health problems, to be chasing it 16 hours a day.

It should be
"unless your child is having some very serious health problems,"

@NicoleK But the point is, motherhood has always been seen as tiring, and women of privilege have historically outsources.

This point is not disputed here at all.

What is asserted by me and some bothers is that being tired/having hormonal shifts/accepting particular child bearing philosophy/etc. can not be an excuse for not showing your spouse respect and/or not having that respect at all. Lack of respect by LW's wife --- that's the problem.

Ok I have to say- this has to be the most entertaining of all these columns. But any ways, I am a female and I don't think she's going to agree to counciling. She might, but if she's been ok with hubby sleeping down the hall probably not. She doesn't have the right to cut off communication and sex! Now I was raised in a very religious household so I understand what Laura is saying, but Spartee and Luljp are right- sex is part of your marriage vows and if you are physically able, refusing it is breaking those vows- im not saying cheating is right, but the other is basically just as wrong. And parents are supposed to form a united front, or you end up with very VERY screwed up kids.

"That therapay approach involves a sub-inquiry that is really not an inquiry, but an subtle accusation: is the sex-seeking spouse's failings as a spouse a cause of a loss of libido?"

What about the cases that we've had where the wife has gained 50+ pds? That has been seen as a "failing of the sex-seeking spouse", and justification for not having sex. If this was an overweight woman who still wanted sex from her hubby, you guys would be on his side.

And, once again, you'd probably be advising him to bail since she isn't thinking enough about his sexual needs to keep herself in perfect shape.

It's interesting that no one has wondered whether LW has become a big tub of fat over the past 6 years and therefore totally unattractive to his wife.

Like I said, either this woman was always a first-class bitch, or things have occurred within this marriage that have caused her to pull away from him sexually.

Only the LW knows the answer, but it's not wrong for us to theorize what those other factors might be.

I work 16 hours a day chasing around an 8 1/2 month old

Is it an unusually fast baby? Here's a trick - babies can't corner. Their balance is off because of their disproportionately large heads and general pudginess. They're a lot like little bald bears. The reason that they run everywhere is because otherwise they'll fall down. So if you can chase them around a corner, there's a good chance that they'll topple over. Then you can grab them!

I'm a little bit curious, if people don't mind expressing their opinions, at what point in the marriage(if any) does cheating become an acceptable option?

Never, Meloni. A couple can open their marriage up, but that's not cheating if it's by agreement.

Sneaking around behind someone's back - someone you supposedly love - is never acceptable, and it can lead to very serious consequences, from STDs to murder. People don't often consider that when they're thinking about cheating, but I've seen loved ones exposed, and have been exposed myself, to very dangerous situations due to the passions involved. A spouse has no right to unwittingly endanger his/her partner by cheating.

Maternal fatigue is not new. - NicoleK

Spartees point wasnt that maternal fatigue was new, it was that the idea of maternal fatigue 'lasting years at a time and being caused soley by men not putting their socks in a hamper' was new

Obviously this arrangement does NOT work for the LW. So he needs to HELP FIX IT. - Lori M

Kinda hard to 'help' fix it when the wife refused to talk about it and doesnt even consider it to be a problem

I'm a little bit curious, if people don't mind expressing their opinions, at what point in the marriage(if any) does cheating become an acceptable option? - Meloni

Never, I dont think anyone saying this guy should look elsewhere if his wife cuts him off should cheat - he should be very upfront about the fact that he needs sex and if she doesnt want to provide he will look elsewhere

Is it really so hard to give this thing one year, when the situation may just be temporary? - Amy P

So, did you miss the part where this has been going on for as long as the fisrt kid has been alive?

There's no risk to waiting . . . seeing a marriage counselor (perhaps by himself)

Maybe it's time for the cliched date night, taking her hands in his, making soulful Leonardo DiCaprio/Twilight vampire eyes, and asking, "Sweetheart, I love you and I love the kids. How do you think we can have a better marriage?" And then listen--maybe even take some notes. And keep listening. -Amy P

Isnt is amazing how somehow, someway, it is always, ALWAYS, REALLY the guys fault in some obsure manner?

At work these days, you're unlikely to lose a hand in a sawmill, have a tree fall on you while logging or get trapped in a mine collapse, because fewer and fewer American men have that kind of job anymore. On average, it is much safer and easier to be a guy than it used to be. -Amy P

And yet, 90% of all workpalce fatalite are still men, guess its not that safe just yet

"Kinda hard to 'help' fix it when the wife refused to talk about it and doesnt even consider it to be a problem"

I think what she's refusing to discuss is stopping the co-sleeping, which she has obviously embraced like a religion, as these earthy moms do.

He doesn't actually say that she's refusing to discuss having sex, or that she's unwilling to have sex with him elsewhere. As someone notes, co-sleepers seem to have lots of kids, so they must be having sex somehow.

Another thing is that the 6 yr old will soon be having playdates, and will be realizing that other little girls have rooms and pretty beds of their own. It's unlikely that she's going to want to co-sleep much longer (unless the mom is keeping her totally isolated).

If he can't get through to the mom, he might try working at it from the daughter's angle. "Wouldn't you like your own big girl bed?"

My interpretation is the LW feels like the kids have replaced him as the main focus of his wife. That is why he is tying the sleeping in the same bed and the sex together. He feels there is no intimacy in their relationship anymore, if that is the case then he needs to decide what his ultimate actions will be, either he stays even if there is no intimacy or he goes.

If he chooses to stay, he needs to state his position fully and clearly. I am here because I love my kids but basically we are roommates etc. and I will be satisfying my sexual needs elsewhere, then write it in a contract.

If he chooses to go, then he needs to state I am leaving because we have no relationship left and I don't need a roommate.

This will either wake her up to saving her marriage or everyone will be better off when they separate and can find a more compatible partner.

Speaking from the female perspective of living with a man who has a much lower sex drive than I do, those are pretty much the only options I can see really being effective and it cuts through all the bs as well. He is frustrated and unhappy and she needs to make a choice to either work with him or let him go.

I don't care how tired you are, I don't care how hard motherhood is, your spouse is your priority and both partners need to compromise, if they can't then they need to move kids or not.

The irony is that this woman, who embraces the philosophy of the "family bed" as a means to raise more secure and happy kids would risk divorce, not apparently comprehending how much less secure and happy her kids will be in that eventuality. She's defeating her main purpose by kicking dad out of the "family bed" (which is ironic in itself).

he should be very upfront about the fact that he needs sex and if she doesnt want to provide he will look elsewhere

Which will be a great heads up that she should have him followed by a private detective for the inevitable divorce proceedings. "Put out or I'll find someone who will give me pussy" is an ultimatum, and few people respond well to that.

That approach might work. She might become the compliant moist hole so many people here think she should be, but she won't be a sexual partner.

"Maybe it's time for the cliched date night, taking her hands in his, making soulful Leonardo DiCaprio/Twilight vampire eyes, and asking, "Sweetheart, I love you and I love the kids. How do you think we can have a better marriage?" And then listen--maybe even take some notes. And keep listening. -Amy P"

lujlp: 'Isnt is amazing how somehow, someway, it is always, ALWAYS, REALLY the guys fault in some obsure manner?'

Who said anything about fault? I've said repeatedly that the wife is a little crazy (as new mothers often are) and that she's possibly depressed. It's very worthwhile asking and finding out what the situation looks like from her (admittedly skewed) perspective. As somebody said earlier, marriage is not Monopoly or poker--it's more like a prisoner's dilemma where you can either both win a lot, both lose a lot, or both lose a little, depending on how well you can cooperate.

Think of the process as debugging a program. There's something going on that is causing the system to crash, and seeing as how LW seems to be the only fully-functioning adult in the home (perhaps because he sleeps by himself rather than being woken up every 2-3 hours), it's up to him to put on his cape and save the day. With any luck, his wife will recover enough to return the favor.

That approach might work. She might become the compliant moist hole so many people here think she should be, but she won't be a sexual partner.
Posted by: MonicaP

She isnt exactly a sexual partner now, is she?

And again we've come round to the notion that if a woamn needs more than half a decade and and endless list of 'things to be done' to get ready for sex that is perfectly understandable.

But if a guy dares to want sex he is an unfeeling beast who thinks only whith hiis dick and sees his wife as an object.

Give me a fucking break.

You know I ran across an arctile that suggested of the two sexes it was the males who are more emotional and in need of emotional support.

And that the reason most people assume women are more in touch with their feelings is a combonation of womens better developed frontal lobes allowing for better communication of their emotional state, and the demand scociety places on men to be in controll of and hide their emotions

Sorry, I screwed up the prisoner's dilemma. The options in that game (where two accomplices are being interrogated by the police) are:

1. rat on each other (both lose big)

2. both keep silent (both win big)

3. one turns in the other (one loses a bunch, the other loses a little)

Divorce is the ultimate prisoner's dilemma game, and as it is usually played, most people go for option #1 and both lose big.

A successful marriage is like option #2.

"despite his mama's warnings (listen to your mamas, boys! We can spot these bitches!)."

Similarly, I can't count the number of times that a woman I've known has taken a long time to figure out that her boyfriend is a douchebag, when all of her guy friends had the guy spotted as a playa the moment they first met him. I have a theory that it's a lot easier to spot a narcissist/borderline of the same sex than one of the opposite sex. Not sure why this is, but it's the pattern I've seen.

"I'm a little bit curious, if people don't mind expressing their opinions, at what point in the marriage(if any) does cheating become an acceptable option?"

My own opinion, I don't really think ever. A marriage is an agreement, basically a kind of contract, and cheating is both dishonest and a breach of contract. It involves sacrificing integrity. I do think there are situations where one might say it is "understandable", sure, but not "acceptable". If you're really not happy, it's not resolvable, you've talked it through, you've exhausted all options, you have legitimate reasons and it's better for the partnership to end - then discuss with your partner that you'd like a divorce, mention the reasons, try to keep it as amicable as possible without making lawyers rich or using the kids as cannon fodder, and just try do things honestly and legitimately and above board.

"Maybe it's time for the cliched date night, taking her hands in his, making soulful Leonardo DiCaprio/Twilight vampire eyes, and asking, "Sweetheart, I love you and I love the kids. How do you think we can have a better marriage?" And then listen--maybe even take some notes. And keep listening."

Should I wash and kiss her feet just before or after this?

If your kids are healthy, they will grow up and leave you. If your marriage is healthy, your spouse won't. Treat'em both right.

But if a guy dares to want sex he is an unfeeling beast who thinks only whith hiis dick and sees his wife as an object.

Give me a fucking break.

Ok, I'll give you a fucking break: No one here has come remotely close to saying that. It would be extra special if some of the men here would stop projecting their issues on women they have never met.

No one said this guy is a beast. In fact, I am assuming the best from him: that he wants an actual partner and not a blow-up doll. If he wants a blow-up doll, then he is free to go about getting that however works best for him. If he wants a partner, he needs to figure out what's wrong with his relationship instead of issuing ultimatums about sex.

"I cannot believe the immediate jump to divorce of many of the replies." ... "All of this anger and bitterness about this issue is startling. I am sorry you guys seem to have had such nasty women in your lives."

Heh, that's standard fare on these column discussions (shrug) - it is sometimes gender-slanted, but equally often in the opposite direction. Trust me, if this was a woman writing in that her husband, say, withdrew affection over six years ago and now literally refuses to even discuss it and is kicking her out of the bedroom, then the women here would be virtually unanimous in the cries of 'dump/divorce him instantly'. (And nobody, certainly not Amy P, would be suggesting that she is at fault and that she must be "patient and kind to him for another year or two" and "really really listen to him, and take notes, and then keep listening".) That's just how it goes on this forum.

It is true that the LW didn't ask whether or not to end it, but how to fix it. But that isn't necessarily an argument for sticking to that request - I mean, abuse victims often don't want to end it either, that doesn't mean they shouldn't be advised to. The woman writing last week about her pervert boyfriend who gets off flashing strangers publicly also wasn't asking whether to end it, but it might be sound advice to do so.

To most men, I think the idea of being mostly (and then almost entirely) shut out of sex for over six years by a dominating woman who refuses to even discuss the issue, signifies a relationship that is not only long dead but more importantly basically has no hope of getting better. He looks at his future and sees a sexless marriage. Since sex is important to men (whether women want to accept this fact or not), most men would probably consider that a deal-breaker.

It could be that these issues don't bother this guy as much as it would most men, and that they have a happy marriage ahead if they can just get past this problem. Maybe. Or it could be he's just so 'emotionally abused' and downtrodden that he can no longer even see how bad things are, and needs some outside perspective.

"So many of the people I've known who left long-term marriages in search of more or "better" sex are alone now, probably having a lot less sex than when they were married."

That is probably very common. But there are also people who leave sour, sexless marriages, and then end up in much happier marriages with more giving/caring partners, like a good friend of mine. The other thing about being in a sexless marriage is that it's akin to being continually rejected, which in some ways can be worse than being alone.

MonicaP Says:

"If he wants a partner, he needs to figure out what's wrong with his relationship instead of issuing ultimatums about sex."

I think this is a fair perspective. However, there is an assumption being made by some posters that is also potentially fair.

That assumption boils down to the following:

What if "what's wrong" with the relationship is that his wife has absolutely no interest in sex anymore?

The question many posters are trying to answer is what he should consider doing if this happens to be the case.

You canno badger or pester someone into being sexually interested in you when that interest is gone. It is also unreasonable to expect someone to wait for years at a time or jump through hoops to change someones mind on this matter.

Once someones mind is made up about something like that it is difficult to change.

Out of curiosity, how many people have talked you into sleeping with them when you had zero sexual interest in them?

I'm guessing the answer is at or around zero.

So while there may in fact be other issues to address here and I would advocate working on those issues first whatever they happen to be, if the issue really is that his wife is no longer interested in sex with him, what is he supposed to do?

Is he supposed to be celibate for the rest of his life?

Is he supposed to divorce her and find a new partner?

Are they supposed to open up the marriage?

These are the options people are putting on the table to address the above potential problem and I think one can make arguments for and against any of them.

Another thought occured to me on this issue.

How many people would find it reasonable to even hold a calm discussion in the following situation:

A man decides he wants to have his six year old daughter sleeping in the bed. His wife does not like this and is summarily ejected from the marital bed to sleep on her own while her husband and child share the bed without her.

Is this something to have a calm and rational discussion over?

Or is something really wrong here.

It IS possible that she is no longer sexually interested in him. However, as they are married and have two kids, it's fair to assume that she was sexually interested in him at some point, and while it seems to be a common stereotype, most women I know do not stop being interested in sex with their husbands, at least permanently. So it seems worth the effort to figure out what's wrong.

If this were an abusive situation, I would tell this guy to leave and take his kids with him. But it isn't, as far as we can tell. It's just two people hitting a bump in the marital road, as happens sometimes.

What I find interesting about a lot of these discussions is that they tend to devolve into "Well, if it were a man doing this, you would call the police and have him arrested and make him wear a scarlet P for pedophile and dip him in olive oil and roll him Bisquick. And steal his shoes. Or something." Except that rarely happens on this blog, so I'm not sure where that's coming from. Also, I'm not quite sure what all the gender angst has to do with this guy's problem, but it's a common, incessant whine.

To jump back in here, I think it's teensy tiny itty bitty faint glimmer of a good sign that LW's wife needs an actual, squirmy, physical barrier to distance herself from him. There have been letters here before where one partner just says "No sex" and that's the end of it, but LW's wife is making a show of giving him a reason (however idiotic) why there's no sex. That leads me to believe he has more of a chance to find out what the hell is going on with her than if she just said no.

I also don't think she's a die-hard "family bed" proponent, because wouldn't she be giving LW all sorts of reasons why that's the best way? Granted, he could be leaving that out of his letter because he's heard it so much, but he never mentions it. In fact, he says he can't understand why the older girl needs to sleep in their bed, so it looks like he was never given a reason for it. Seems to me like she's using the kids to put up a wall for another reason. I don't think she's a dominating, my-way-or-else-because-I-said-so woman, because LW also never mentions any other instances of that kind of attitude. There's some reason she's distancing herself and something she wants/needs/doesn't want/doesn't need and is too immature to talk to her husband, instead communicating in such an awful, awful way. That's why I and others advise LW to try to talk to his wife and use the "I just want to figure out what's going on with you" tactic. He'll regret it if he leaves without trying everything he can.

And that's the only thing we can blame LW for within the confines of the information he's given us: he's let this go on for far, far too long, which is understandable to a point considering the man does need to sleep. But passively going along with this situation and then leaving without trying everything in his power to rectify it is as cowardly as his wife's actions. And since he's the one who wrote, he's the one who has to change his behavior to try to find some sort of solution. Maybe after he tries and tries to figure it out she still won't budge, but better LW should know he did what he could.

"But passively going along with this situation and then leaving without trying everything in his power to rectify it is as cowardly as his wife's actions"

This is what leads me to think that she may be quite dominating, and/or that it might even border on a small level of 'emotional abuse'. I'm a fairly passive guy and even I can't imagine just going so passively along with something like this for six years. Maybe he's leaving out details, but the whole thing sounds like he is just passively and cowardly going along with whatever she dictates. Such a passive/wimpy demeanour also leads directly to the loss of respect we're seeing in this relationship, and to being walked over (and unfortunately people are wired such that even the most decent ones start walking over you if you're too passive).

I think it could well also be tied to the loss of sex drive. Women in general are very un-attracted to men who are wimpy and passive. Losing respect and losing sexual interest are oft-correlated.

This is also why I disagree with Amy P's advice, as she is saying that this man must become even more passive, grovelling at her feet and working ever harder to make sure all her wants and needs are met. That is a sure-fire strategy to make a woman lose interest in you. If she's lost interest and respect for him partly because he's too passive, this is going to make the problem 10 times worse. I think he needs to do the opposite, and grow a spine.

"And nobody, certainly not Amy P, would be suggesting that she is at fault and that she must be "patient and kind to him for another year or two" and "really really listen to him, and take notes, and then keep listening"."

Sure I would, along with a visit to the urologist and a doctor to check him out for depression. Sexuality is at least 50% a physical issue (hence our long discussions of the oddities of maternal physiology), and you've got to check that stuff out first before jumping to any conclusions.

I've been re-reading Julia Grey's site "Why Your Wife Won't Have Sex With You" and it's just as brilliant as I remembered. She has a lot of men writing in with similar questions and she has long sections on various issues. I've just finished the motherhood section, which is very long, but very well worth reading.

http://juliagrey.wordpress.com/challenges/motherhood/

Grey describes her post-partum depression like this: "I not only got depressed, I felt ASHAMED of feeling depressed, and that made everything worse." I'd note here that burying yourself in family bed philosophy or any extreme parenting system may actually be a sign of depression and overcompensation in the face of unhappiness and dissatisfaction with motherhood. Grey also singles the family bed out as problematic, because it hurts the parents' quality of sleep, which has repercussions on the rest of their waking life. There's the awful possibility that in the LW's wife's case, her philosophy is undermining her physical well-being, which in turn is undermining her marriage, which is making her more unhappy and more tenacious in holding onto the family bed philosophy. Yuck!

(Again, in the LW's case, we don't know that it has been this severe for six years. In fact, thanks to the existence of the infant, we know it hasn't. The birth of the new kid has put them into crisis mode, which is not exactly a novel situation.)

The thing is... the wife hasn't written to Amy. So we can talk at length about the advice we would give her... but she hasn't written in. It's pointless.

The guy has. So we can only advise him. Not the wife.

Now I'm sure we would all have tons of advice for the wife if she wrote in with her side of the story. Maybe we'd be telling HER to be patient and kind. But she hasn't written in.

The guy has. He's the one we have to advise.

Yeah, but where are the hardliners? The you-made your-bed-and-had-two-kids-with-this-crazy-bitch advocates? Where's Crid?

If he wasn't getting much sex before, then he should've at least bailed before the second kid came along.

I'm the first to tell people, male or female, to get out of weird or unsatisfying relationships when they're aren't young children, but kids are a game changer.

It's not so much about him and his happiness anymore. I mean, if it's absolute day-to-day hell, and he's tried everything, then yes, but he's not describing it quite that way (though some guys here are projecting this level of misery).

If he's that passive, he needs to work on himself first because, even if he leaves, he'll probably just end up in the same place with another woman.

Maybe he can get them both into counseling and find out why she is so disinterested in sex (molestation, perhaps - it's not normal to NEVER want sex) and, at the very least, he can learn to stand up for himself.

If they can possible save the marriage, it's worthwile for the sake of those children.

Collecting some quotes from various posters to respond to here:

NumberSix: "To jump back in here, I think it's teensy tiny itty bitty faint glimmer of a good sign that LW's wife needs an actual, squirmy, physical barrier to distance herself from him. "

I'm not so sure. In fact, I think it may be a bad sign, because it looks like borderline behavior. Borderlines make selfish decisions, and then try to create circumstances so that they can say they "had" to do that, and therefore can't be held responsible for their decisions.

Lobster: "To most men, I think the idea of being mostly (and then almost entirely) shut out of sex for over six years by a dominating woman who refuses to even discuss the issue, signifies a relationship that is not only long dead but more importantly basically has no hope of getting better. "

The no-sex bit is only part of the problem. It's clear that when it comes to parenting decisions, she's the boss. That's why I don't think his taking charge of the six-year-old's bedtime will work -- his wife will undercut anything that he does. She'll invite the six-year-old back to the parents' bed after he falls asleep, or some such. Or she'll turn it into a good-cop-bad-cop game: "If it were up to me, you could sleep with us, but your father won't allow it." The LW's wife has no respect for her husband.

LS: "Yeah, but where are the hardliners? The you-made your-bed-and-had-two-kids-with-this-crazy-bitch advocates?"

Well, you have a point. What I will say, though, is that if you have never been taught about Cluster B personality disorders, then it's not easy to spot one of these types when you get into a relationship with them. That's because they will be charming and on their best behavior, until such time as they feel like they have gained control over you. Then the situation will change, drastically. I know this from my own bitter experience.

It would be extra special if some of the men here would stop projecting their issues on women they have never met.

You know what? If my wife told me she had a sore vagina, I wouldn't push sex too hard. And my wife and I engaged in other options after the kids were born. Occasionally, we put the infant out of the bed or moved to other places for our marital debauchery. It is what normal people do. Is this what SHE did?

Okay. Next item: Depression. He's lived with this woman for at least 6 years. One would think he knows her moods and attitudes very well by this point. If she is in a totally zoned out mode, he'd describe it or seek medical help without bothering us. Unless Amy cut that out, he's either absolutely clueless at her moods or she isn't depressed. No crying jags. No moody silences.

If my wife approached me about a new philosophy of child rearing and/or wanted to help the older child adjust, I would expect her to discuss the matter with me so we could work out ways to allay her fears, not retroactively making parental decisions. And if I mentioned that her new tactic wasn't working for me, maritally, she OWES me a conversation.

See, even if she was a born again earth mother or depressed as hell, the crossing the Rubicon wake up call was when Hubby moved out of the bedroom. Even the most depressed of people can count to four and when every night the number is three, one sort of notices.

And one would expect a bit of remorse or MORE depression at this new assault on her self respect. But no, that isn't what we got. We got a rather cavalier attitude about not seeing a problem. It's his problem. When he gets over it, things will be swell! SHE'S happy. Sixy is happy. The infant is happy. What is his malfunction?

The person who is pushing a divorce is the person whose actions are pushing in that direction. The one who is digging in their heels. The uncommunicative one.

So no, I'm not particularly projecting anything here, thank you very much. My wife never treated me like this...nor do I expect have any of the women on this forum treated a spouse like this, depression or no.

Cousin Dave: Similarly, I can't count the number of times that a woman I've known has taken a long time to figure out that her boyfriend is a douchebag, when all of her guy friends had the guy spotted as a playa the moment they first met him. I have a theory that it's a lot easier to spot a narcissist/borderline of the same sex than one of the opposite sex. Not sure why this is, but it's the pattern I've seen.

There might be something to your theory, Dave, but I'm not so sure. In the cases you're referring to, perhaps the woman's female friends also spotted the guy as a player (or do you know that they didn't?)

I think it's much easier for anyone, male or female, to see someone with different eyes when they're not romantically and sexually involved with them.

Love turns on denial switches, I think many people take a first impression of someone and build an imaginary person around that, and fall in love with it.

People are pretty good at hearing what they want to hear...

Just one thing... I prepped for parenthood by reading the What to Expect Books, Doctor Sears, Mayo Clinic, speaking to friends, online website...

My husband has yet to read a single book. Whenever I've approached him to discuss a parenting style, he always is like "Sure whatever, sounds good".

How do we know the wife HASN'T had discussions with him about parenting styles? Maybe he wasn't listening?

NicoleK asks:

“How do we know the wife HASN'T had discussions with him about parenting styles? Maybe he wasn't listening?”

We do not know anything for certain, but this position seems unlikely for the following reasons. Firstly we are told this:

“I fully believe that my daughter should go to her own bed now. My wife does not agree. In fact, she refuses to even discuss it.”

According to the LW, his wife isn’t the type to have discussions about parenting styles. It is her way or the highway so far as he tells it.

So sure, it is plausible that six years ago she opened up a discussion about parenting styles and he all but ignored her. However that doesn’t jive with the current situation where she doesn’t even want to hear what he has to say on the subject.

I suppose he could be a liar too, but it is unfair to assume that his story is all made up.

Secondly, it seems unlikely that a man who is aware of advice columnists and even writes into one to get some perspective on his current relationship issues is the type of guy who doesn’t bother listening to what his wife has to say on various relationship issues.

The type of person who writes in for advice like this is the type of person who wants to hear the perspective of their partner.

As such I see no valid reason to conclude that his wife spoke with him about parenting styles at length and he just ignored her entirely.

The more reasonable conclusion to draw is that she wasn't terribly interested in his opinion on parenting styles and he has just gone along with it for years and now is getting upset about the fact that he has been ignored for so long.

As such I see no valid reason to conclude that his wife spoke with him about parenting styles at length and he just ignored her entirely.

Right. And I'm pretty sure that kicking your husband out of his bed and pitting him against his children isn't a formally recognized 'parenting style'.

It's quite possible that the LW's wife had come up with the idea of sleeping with her six year old on her own. People here are just assuming that she's following some sort of 'family bed' approach. But the LW doesn't mention that and I assume that he would if it were relevant. His wife refusing to discuss the matter doesn't argue for her following this sort of advice. Otherwise that would be her reason. She doesn't appear to have any such motive.

Maybe he's leaving out details, but the whole thing sounds like he is just passively and cowardly going along with whatever she dictates.

To clarify, I meant that she might not be dominating in other areas of their relationship because he doesn't say anything about that being a personality trait of hers. Without that information, it looks like she's taking advantage of his passive nature in this one area. If this happens all the time in many aspects of their life together, then she may be dictatorial. But I'm just going on the bare-bones info he gave us, which is why it seems like a leap to diagnose her as borderline based solely on this letter. I do think she's using the kids as a reason not to have sex, but I don't see how we can claim she's pathological rather than scared/cowardly/unable or unwilling to voice her opinions. We don't even have more info on her parenting, just what she's done in regard to the bed. And like jared and I have both said, she doesn't even seem like the "family bed" type because LW didn't say anything about her giving a reason for it, which she most likely would have if she had a legitimate one.

I totally agree further passivity is not the way to go here. He need not be confrontational or hypercritical, but he needs to make overt attempts to find out what the hell is going on. Like I said, LW hasn't given us any reason for his wife's behavior and it seems like he hasn't even asked. If she's at all interested in saving their marriage and their family, then she'll respond to one of the many tactics we've laid out here. If she doesn't, then LW can know that he did try.

I agree with you NumberSix.

But do you think he should try for a whole year?

But do you think he should try for a whole year?

He is making a 20 year (minimum) commitment to his kids. He probably has a 30 year commitment to a bank. Is his marriage worth less?

It is short-sighted to be looking for an out instead of looking to work through the issues and come out stronger for it.

Is his marriage worth less?

If he can expect a matching committment from the woman, then no, it isn't worth less. If she gets treated. If she starts talking. Absent these things, he's wasting his time.

Thinking about it, you are probably correct. While I have little hope for this marriage, because we have read nothing that that there is any post partum anything or a born again Earth Mother thing, still it gives him two things

One, he can go to the divorce judge with a clear trail of having tried to work things out

Two, he can mentally adjust himself to being alone since he's been shut out of his bedroom.

(I certainly wouldn't suggest he take this opportunity to hide some of his assets cause that would be wrong)

Just out of curiosity, what would be a serious enough signal for the wife to know that her marriage was in serious trouble enough to remove her head from her fundement? I thought girls were good on the communication thing and he's saying something pretty loud and clear here.

I thought girls were good on the communication thing and he's saying something pretty loud and clear here.

My impression of the limited information given by LW is that they both are party to poor communication. Good communication consists of messages sent, received and acknowledged. That does not seem to be the case for LW and his wife.

If LW puts in work to become a better communicator (even though the fault is not his. Or not all his), it is a long term investment. It can help him with his marriage, it can help him in his career, and it can help him when in 5 more years his little girl becomes a mysterious hormonal alien creature living in his house.

By learning and putting to use good communication skills, he models them for the wife (who may be a communi-tard) and his children.

If the marriage is unsalvagable, he still needs to communicate to co-parent with the mother of his children. So there is no down side for him to make that effort. And continue to make that effort. Long term positive no matter the short term outcome.

Still, first things first. The wife is a fairly recent new mother. The LW doesn't specify, though. So issues that are known to be fairly common to new mothers should be given some consideration.

Exhaustion, feeling overwhelmed, possible post-partum depression, painful intercourse, insecurity about her now saggier, stretchmarkier body are all very common. Does she have some or all of these issues? Maybe. Maybe not. But they should definitely be considered.

Every relationship is different. We cannot arbitrarily put an expiration date on it.

I do not think it helpful or beneficial to fire a warning shot off his wife's bow. Ultimatums don't work. At least not the way we'd like them too.

If he can find out what is going on with his wife's thinking, he can shape his plan. If his goal is and remains to have a strong marriage that lasts and a nurturing and stable home for his kids then he needs to work towards those goals. Always.

And it is effin hard work. Always. That doesn't mean it isn't worth it.

"Thinking about it, you are probably correct. While I have little hope for this marriage, because we have read nothing that that there is any post partum anything or a born again Earth Mother thing, still it gives him two things"

I don't know why you believe there's no indication of a "born again Earth Mother" thing. Just his use of the term "co-sleeping" suggests that to me. It's the kind of pretentious phrase an earth mother type would use. She's definately following a parenting "style". Otherwise, he would've just said, "My wife likes sleeping with our daughter in the bed with us".

One positive that I see is that young mothers are easily influenced by this silliness and by other mothers. I suspect someone in her group of friends or family is pushing the co-sleeping - or else she's read a bunch of books on it (co-sleeping seems particularly popular among fundamentalist christians and homeschooler types, for some reason).

She may just be so anxious about being a "perfect mother" that she's gone a little nutty on this and forgotten that she also needs to be a good wife. The good news is that, by the second child, most of these "methods" get abandoned, as moms relax and begin to realize that there's no one "right" way and their kids are turning out just fine, despite not doing it perfectly.

At any rate, it's certainly worth a year of effort to try and fix this for his kids' sakes, before bailing.

"There might be something to your theory, Dave, but I'm not so sure. In the cases you're referring to, perhaps the woman's female friends also spotted the guy as a player (or do you know that they didn't?)"

I can think of at least one case involving a friend of a friend. My friend was the head waitress in a bar, a few years older than me at the time. Her friend was a young waitress who got hooked up with a serious playa. All of the other waitresses were absolutely gaga about the guy except for the head waitress. Me, the bartenders, and the regulars at the bar all had the guy sussed out from the word go. The head waitress was the only one of the women who did. It ended very badly for the gal; the guy stole her car and took off.

"If his goal is and remains to have a strong marriage that lasts and a nurturing and stable home for his kids then he needs to work towards those goals. Always."

Not "always". Relationships, and even families, aren't giant life-long sacrificial altars that a man must throw himself on. It's supposed to be 'give and take'. If it's only 'give' from his side and 'take' from the other, and he gets nothing out of it, then no, he doesn't 'need' to work towards anything (other than finding someone new who sees relationships as a two-way street). I agree he should give at least another shot at working this out, but nothing requires him to sacrifice his entirely life on the altar of the needs and wants of his partner. Any woman who thinks that a man's role is 100% sacrifice, is in for a rude shock sooner or later.

I agree with Cousin Dave, men universally can spot a male player a mile away, while a sizable percentage of women seem incapable of doing so, or they don't care. The converse I've observed is that men seem more oblivious when a female is showing interest in them.

I don't know if you can necessarily tell by the other women's reactions whether they can spot a player or not. Never underestimate the disloyality and need for drama that many women direct towards their so-called "friends".

Besides, an enamored woman doesn't want to listen anyway. I was just having a conversation like this with a gf this morning - pointing out certain potentially negative signs about a guy she has recently begun dating. She countered each one by spinning it more positively and seeming hurt that I would question his integrity. She called me "skeptical" - duh, isn't that what you should be in the early stages?

Women definately send a message to each other that you're not a true friend if you're not onboard with their happiness, however delusional and temporary it might be.

I don't think guys have that as much. Guys will knock another guys girl and everybody laughs (or at least that's what I've witnessed.

Not "always". Relationships, and even families, aren't giant life-long sacrificial altars that a man must throw himself on.

Dude. You jumped right past the point. He isn't sacrificing himself on the altar if he is building and enjoying a stronger marriage. If he puts in work now and all along the way and reaps rewards in the not-too-distant future and long term, it isn't a sacrifice. He's getting exactly what he said he wanted: his wife more open to communication and a more willing partner in the sack.

How is it a hardship to get exactly what he says he wants? Because he needs to work at it? It is an investment. If he can figure out a way to help get he and his wife on the same long-term and satisfied page, how is that a hardship?

If he works and tries and it still doesn't fly, he can still use the skills he's learned in trying to salvage the marriage to be a better parent, worker and eventually partner to someone else more in tune with him.

I think the hardest thing I have with the reaction of many (certainly not all) of the women's reactions to this situation is this:

She's tired, she's depressed, she's engaging in some loopy philosophical exercise, whatever and somehow she is considered irresponsible for the situation that she created...and continues to create. And refuses to discuss. Nope. She gets to be treated like a child.

In our culture, a spouse sleeping on a couch is a pretty direct method of communication that something is wrong...and moving out of the bedroom is far worse! Yet somehow, she is allowed to not have a clue. (The other option: that she doesn't care, is far worse from the standpoint of defending her)

So in my view, she doesn't have an excuse, at least if you want to treat her like a responsible adult. And her depression would have to be pretty damned severe to subvert her mens rea

Perhaps there is a subtlty that I'm missing. Most of you seem to favor getting the kid out of the bed and almost all of you seem to think that she needs to talk to her husband. That's great. But why is she given this huge responsibilty pass?

The husband, from what I can see, has already done everything he's supposed to do to fix this: talk to her, make a statement, moved initially to avoid conflict. Yet, he is expected to make more and greater efforts and she's expected to...

(cricket cricket)

LauraGr Says:

“He isn't sacrificing himself on the altar if he is building and enjoying a stronger marriage. If he puts in work now and all along the way and reaps rewards in the not-too-distant future and long term, it isn't a sacrifice.”

This is all true.

It is as true as saying that it isn’t a poor financial investment decision to hold onto a stock that has dropped significantly in price if by holding onto it the investment rebounds and returns to or exceeds its original value.

The problem with this type of thinking however it the so-called “sunk cost fallacy”.

When determining how one should invest their money and or their time, their energy, their emotions etc… it is irrelevant how much they have invested in the past.

What is relevant is how likely is the continued investment going to offer profitable returns.

If the likelihood of a profitable return is small, then the smart person cuts their losses and tries to invest their money, time, energy and emotions somewhere else.

As such I guess my question for you is what are the signs he should be looking for in terms of positive progress? What are the signs that things aren’t making enough progress and that he needs to change his strategy.

Simply advocating that someone hold on for dear life to a relationship that looks like it is sinking without giving them clear indications of when it is worth it to let go and when it looks like things are likely to improve is not very helpful.

For example, what if he takes your advice and wait’s a year (which I remind you is a rather arbitrary period of time) and nothing changes much? What would stop someone else from simply advocating that he wait another year, or two years, or five years?

What tangible evidence should he be looking for now to ensure that this relationship is worth another year?

Because from where I stand, the refusal of one spouse to even discuss an issue relating to the raising of your children is a pretty serious breach of the concept of a partnership. That isn’t some minor thing like occasionally forgetting to pick up ones socks or leaving the light on in a room you aren’t currently in, this is a material violation of something that strikes at the very core of what constitutes a healthy and salvageable relationship.

Your entire perspective rests squarely upon the assumption that he has spent the last six years NOT trying. What evidence do you have to support this position?

flydye, I don't see how LW has done everything he's supposed to, for the simple reason he's been in a holding pattern for quite a long time. Avoiding conflict hasn't gotten him squat. It's time for him to make a more concerted effort to talk to her. Not just talk to her, but tell her flat out that, like you say, she needs to behave like a responsible adult. To be a responsible adult himself, he needs to treat her like one. He's been avoiding the issue because he's afraid of getting a response. She's acting like a child, yes, and there are so very many things she should be expected to do, but she didn't write in. He can only control his own behavior, and his part in this is to drag himself out of limbo and find out if his wife is willing to help him in fixing their marriage. If she's not, then at least he has an answer and can move from there. But this status quo they have going isn't working for anyone, except maybe the baby.

I'd be saying the same thing if a wife wrote in about her husband's refusal to discuss some issue: you can only change your own behavior and it's up to you to convey what you'll put up with. So stop just going along with it, see what changes and work from there.

Your entire perspective rests squarely upon the assumption that he has spent the last six years NOT trying. What evidence do you have to support this position?

If he really did try in the beginning, it doesn't matter a whole hell of a lot if he's going passively along now. Letting yourself get run over dilutes whatever stand you made earlier.

That said, I think it should take nowhere near a year to find out if his wife is the least bit willing to work on this. If he's direct and honest and she can't/won't give him reasons why she's acting this way and won't budge, then he should know where he stands. He's tried the "wait and see if it gets better" approach and it hasn't worked so far, so he needs to be very clear on what he needs.

To be a responsible adult himself, he needs to treat her like one. He's been avoiding the issue because he's afraid of getting a response.

Perhaps that is it. Or perhaps he already values (overvalues some might say) the relationship he wishes he had and doesn't want to risk it in a confrontation. What if she tells him to take a hike? What if she tells him no...oh...wait...she already did that. What was that about ultimatums?

I agree with you that he needs to address this issue and it won't take a year to know exactly what is happening here. One direct and loud conversation is probably all it will take. I wonder if the wife values his relationship enough to have a nice loud confrontation. Because if she's willing to dump/disregard/divorce him over one confrontation, then she never really valued the marriage in the first place.

(Sorry I missed this the first time around)

He doesn't actually say that she's refusing to discuss having sex, or that she's unwilling to have sex with him elsewhere. As someone notes, co-sleepers seem to have lots of kids, so they must be having sex somehow.

What part of 'virtually sexless' was unclear? So it certainly suggests that she isn't willing to have sex in other places.

Another thing is that the 6 yr old will soon be having playdates, and will be realizing that other little girls have rooms and pretty beds of their own. It's unlikely that she's going to want to co-sleep much longer (unless the mom is keeping her totally isolated).

So mom gets to keep the impression that she is totally allowed to disregard and dispect her husband's feelings up to and including tossing him out of his own bed. Not the educational points I would make, but I'm strange like that. Because something else is going to come up and then what?

NumberSix Says:

"That said, I think it should take nowhere near a year to find out if his wife is the least bit willing to work on this."

This is really what I am trying to get at with all this talk about how he has to stick it out for at least another year.

The notion of a year is just a silly psychologically satisfying benchmark that has no real meaning in this situation.

The benchmark has to be real, it has to be tangible and it has to be measurable in some reasonable way.

None of us really know what has happened in the last six years for this couple.

All we know is that at the present time the wife is refusing to talk to the LW regarding a rather important matter when it comes to raising their children.

This is unacceptable behavior within a marriage.

I agree that he needs to make this very clear to her and encourage her to engage him in conversation. However, if the time table for her even being able to talk with him about these issues is on the order of a year, I'm not convinced it is a relationship worth salvaging.

Unless some sort of legitimate progress can be observed within a few attempts at honest and adult conversation this is not a problem that will be resolved simply by waiting it out or talk it out over a year time span.

It is not possible to deal in a reasonable fashion with an unreasonable person.

If however some legitimate progress can be made then I’d say there is reason for hope.

As you said, it shouldn't take a year to assess ones chances of being able to move in a positive direction.

My husband has yet to read a single book. Whenever I've approached him to discuss a parenting style, he always is like "Sure whatever, sounds good".

How do we know the wife HASN'T had discussions with him about parenting styles? Maybe he wasn't listening?

'I don't know art, but I know what I like.'

Likewise, I may not know parenting styles, but I know that if the one my wife is using is kicking me out of my bed, that I don't need to read a book to know that I don't like it.

So I don't find this argument persuasive, a) because while they may or may not have talked about it initially, they have tried it and it isn't working for him; and b) that the lack of discussion before does not preclude the prospect of discussing it NOW.

"What is relevant is how likely is the continued investment going to offer profitable returns."

Yes, and that's why he needs to consider his children because they're still a part of this investment. It's not like he can just sell out and take a loss that only effects him. He can't really sell out at all - no matter what, he's still invested in this woman's communication skills and overall happiness, so he might as well work on making those things better, whether or not he stays, because, regardless, it's going to effect his "profits": his children's well-being.

"But why is she given this huge responsibilty pass?"

We're not giving her a pass. This is the same miscommunicatin that always seems to occur between men and women. When women explain WHY someone may be behaving irresponsibly, men assume we are approving the behavior.

Look, we can't tell him how to be right here - he already IS right, no question. This isn't about who's right and wrong, in my opinion. This is about being happy.

The kneejerk reaction is to be right - justified -walk out that door, divorce the wife, leave the kids to her whims and to be sorted out by the legal system. Go have sex - lots of sex - because you're RIGHT to want more sex, dammit!

But is that really going to lead to happiness? As I said he's still got a huge investment. This relationship is like an annuity. He can't really cash out of this for 18+ years without huge penalties. More sex may not be worth the cost he's going to pay, and he needs to decide this.

We're not giving her a pass. This is the same miscommunicatin that always seems to occur between men and women. When women explain WHY someone may be behaving irresponsibly, men assume we are approving the behavior.

Some maybe. You've been on board with the things she's done wrong and stated that plainly. Others, not so much. Looking back, even AmyP mentioned a time or two that she is a bit crazy.

But I find the tenor of the excuses to absolve her She's depressed (it's not her fault); She's tired (it's not her fault..and if you were any kind of man at all, you'd help her rest DAMMIT!); She has a weird parenting philosophy (Can't you think about the children for a mere year or six and satisfy yourself you selfish, needy man?)

Look, we can't tell him how to be right here - he already IS right, no question. This isn't about who's right and wrong, in my opinion. This is about being happy.

Funny how 'being happy' always tends to wind up with the man catering to mamma, because if mamma ain't happy...

The kneejerk reaction is to be right - justified -walk out that door, divorce the wife, leave the kids to her whims and to be sorted out by the legal system. Go have sex - lots of sex - because you're RIGHT to want more sex, dammit!

I find this rather insulting. This isn't about getting off, at least for the most part!

The man had a supposed life partner who has taken steps to exile him from the intimacy of their marital bed, who has become dictatorial over incredibly important aspects of his life (Sleep AND Kids), who arbitrarily decides what is and is not suitable topics of discussion, and who is undercutting his role as parent with the children. This is about a partner who may not care about him anymore. Sex is the least of his problems (and note that the 'least' of his problems is pretty damn important to a man) She is tramping on his love, his self respect and his relationships with his kids.

This is much more serious then how often he gets to dip his wick and being patronizing isn't helping. I know you get it but you are going for the low hanging fruit here.

Lovelysoul Says:

“Yes, and that's why he needs to consider his children because they're still a part of this investment. It's not like he can just sell out and take a loss that only effects him. He can't really sell out at all - no matter what, he's still invested in this woman's communication skills and overall happiness, so he might as well work on making those things better, whether or not he stays, because, regardless, it's going to effect his "profits": his children's well-being.”

I agree with what you say here in terms of the children’s importance, however I don’t recall suggesting that he should “sell out” on his children.

A parents relationship with their children is fully independent from their relationship with their spouse. Anyone individual who believes that one parents relationship with their kids is contingent upon that parents continued relationship with them is guilty of child abuse in my opinion.

He can try all he wants to improve his ability to communicate with his spouse, however if she refuses to be receptive to communication there isn’t much he can do about it.

It isn’t always possible to overcome the sticking ones fingers in their ears and yelling “la la la” method of communication that it is possible the wife is using.

If she is a reasonable woman then there is hope for progress, if she is not a reasonable woman then what is best for his children is for him to try and establish a reasonable environment for them with or without her approval.

The children do not gain anything in the long term if their parents relationship is dominated by a partner who refuses to even hear out the other one. This relationship will model for them what romantic relationships are supposed to be like, it will model for them how people are supposed to negotiate disagreements. The way things are being run right now does not set up a positive example for his children. If things cannot improve he has to consider the fact that what may be in their best interest is to have at least one reasonable example of how to communicate with the people you are supposed to love instead of none at all.

I know that isn’t the optimal resolution, but the optimal resolution is not always possible.

Again, Flydye, the lady isn't here. We can't tell her "She should do x, she should do y"... she isn't here! Sure, there are lots of things she should do... but she isn't here to hear our list of suggestions.

We can only give HIM ideas of how to possibly change the situation and improve himself and the relationship.

We can't give her self-improvement tips, because she isn't reading this thread.

@We can't tell her "She should do x, she should do y"... she isn't here! Sure, there are lots of things she should do... but she isn't here to hear our list of suggestions.

Hmm...
Maybe LW shall just send his wife the link to this discussion. He has nothing to lose doing so, but a potential to expose his wife to harsh reality of being his ex.

"A parents relationship with their children is fully independent from their relationship with their spouse. Anyone individual who believes that one parents relationship with their kids is contingent upon that parents continued relationship with them is guilty of child abuse in my opinion."

I find this statement completely wrong, and I'm not even a hardliner about it. After all, I am divorced, but I also fully believe that every year I gave my children an intact family paid off huge "dividends", so to speak. Every year they were allowed to have that stability was well worth it. And, even after that, their dad and I have maintained a positive relationship with each other, which has drastically reduced the trauma of divorce for them.

LW's wife is his children's mother and always will be. He can't separate that just because he wants to, so his relationship with his kids isn't "independent" of his relationship with her. especially since they are still so young! Of course, he will may them independently, but how well or poorly he gets along with his ex will have an enormous impact on the kids because he may divorce her as a wife, but not as a co-parent.

If this couple already has a communication problem, divorce is only going to make it worse. And I don't mena to be flippant about his sexual needs, but, when you look at it, what else will he really gain by bailing? It seems to me he has a whole lot more to lose.

I'm not saying he shouldn't ultimately divorce, especially if he gives it everything and tries to improve the marriage, and she is still shutting him out, but I don't find anything in his letter that really indicates that he's tried many of these suggestions first. He doesn't mention begging her to get counseling, for instance.

In fact, it sounds like he just passively moved into the other room. For all we know, the wife really doesn't "get" that there's a problem, or that their marriage is teetering on the edge. I agree it would seem so, with him moving to the couch, but, depending on how passive he is, and how "nicely" he did this, she may be clueless about how frustrated he is.

A lot of women simply don't get how critical sex is to a man, and it sounds like this relationship has never been very sexual anyway. This guy accepted a low degree of sexual intimacy from the start, so that has been their status quo. He needs to speak up now and let her know how important this is to him - that he'd even consider divorce. The wife may just need a wake-up call.

I know you didn't, lovelysoul. My issue wasn't that you picked sex to make fun of (which you really didn't). Characterizing his problems ONLY as sex is to miss the big picture.

And I agree. If he politely went to the couch without raising a fuss, his wife may just shrug her shoulders and figure he needs to get over his horny self.

Well, IMO the problem is a bit deeper then blue balls.

Nichole, that is a fair point but frankly, I get the sense from some of the responses that some of the ladies are looking for something (anything) to use to blame him for this situation. Like not listening to talks about a dozen contradictory parenting books, for example. Like not putting the six year old in her own bed for mommy...even though that doesn't seem to be the problem.

And if he doesn't have the patience (and celibacy) of a saint and wait around for a year for the wife to pull her head out, the divorce will be his fault for not trying.

I doubt he's pure as the fallen snow and needs to be a bit more direct, but in the blame section, I'm seeing 80/20 here at best, wife to husband.

I think a couple conversations is all it will take. And they should not be gentle and non confrontational. He needs to be very direct. "I don't like this, this is why I don't like it. And I'd like to know how we can resolve it." Once he states this, the ball is in her court.

Lovelysoul,

I am very confused why you would have any disagreement with what I wrote. This is especially true considering that you are personally divorced.

Your relationship with your children is not predicated upon your continued romantic involvement with your former spouse. Similarly, your children’s fathers relationship with the children is not and should not be predicated upon his continued romantic involvement with you.

All I am saying is that it isn’t a package deal.

You will always be their mother and he will always be their father… but clearly you aren’t always husband and wife.

The same applies here. If the LW determines that things cannot possibly work out with his wife because she is so deeply entrenched in a belief system that locks him out of even discussing how to raise the children they are both the parents to, then he is under no obligation to continue to be married to her.

Ending an unworkable marriage is not the same as “selling out” on the children. These are two different things, and if you really believed they were one and the same why would you ever go through a divorce?

I mean, wouldn’t someone who really believed that stay no matter what the circumstances are for the benefit of the children?

Clearly in some situations children are better off if their parents are no longer romantically entangled with one another. This is not an ideal scenario by any means, but life isn’t always ideal.

“LW's wife is his children's mother and always will be. He can't separate that just because he wants to, so his relationship with his kids isn't "independent" of his relationship with her.”

I totally disagree with you here because I am talking about the existence of and the healthiness of these relationships. A mother-child relationship is independent of the father-child relationship both of which are independent of the mother-father relationship in this context.

To argue that the existence of any of these relationships is contingent upon the existence of one of the others is to argue that at least one of these relationships takes precedence over the others.

I do not agree with that point of view.

"If this couple already has a communication problem, divorce is only going to make it worse."

So a divorce is only ever warrented when a couple is good at communicating with eachother???

I am by no means advocating for divorce here, but it seems odd that anyone would argue that a couple that is incapable of properly communicating with eachother needs to stick it out for the health and wellbeing of the children.

An environment like that will not be healthy for growing children.

"To argue that the existence of any of these relationships is contingent upon the existence of one of the others is to argue that at least one of these relationships takes precedence over the others."

I might've misunderstood you, Reality, but I wasn't arguing that the existence is contingent, just the quality. LW would be foolish to believe that his relationship with his kids won't suffer if he divorces, particularly in the case of very small children, like his youngest, who is probably still nursing. In that sense, the mother-child relationship does take precedence.

"Ending an unworkable marriage is not the same as “selling out” on the children. These are two different things, and if you really believed they were one and the same why would you ever go through a divorce?"

I was following the analogy of the sunken investment theory that flydye addressed. He can't just "cash out" without this impacting his kids.

I think, if many divorced parents were honest, they'd admit that they sold out their kids just a little (or a lot) for their own happiness. There are few cases where divorce is absolutely, unequivocally necessary, though it may still turn out ok, even successfully.

Generations before us stayed married no matter what - through abusive and sexless marriages, wars and long absences. They wouldn't understand a lot of our self-absorbed reasons for bailing on marriages today.

Those of us who've had "successful" divorces realize that we're pretty lucky. Our kids are ok, and relatively unscathed, through a host of fortunate circumstances, as well as the children's innate resiliance and self-esteem.

My kids were teens when they went through it, not toddlers. And I fully admit that my divorce wasn't absolutely necessary. I could've stayed with my cheating spouse. We got along - we still had some good times together. I could've sucked it up and lived with it, as I already had for many years.

But, ultimately, I made the assessment that divorce was SURVIVABLE...that my kids would likely be ok, and I certainly would be better off. I felt I had tried everything possible to make the marriage better, so my conscience was (mostly) clear.

That is the point LW needs to be. His kids are very young. Their personalities and resiliencies are untested. He needs to weigh this very carefully - what divorce would do to them at this stage as well as what it will do to him financially and emotionally. And if there's ANY way to still work this out with his wife, he needs to try it...if for no other reason than so the guilt won't eat him up later. Breaking up a family is no easy business, even when you're right.

Nichole, that is a fair point but frankly, I get the sense from some of the responses that some of the ladies are looking for something (anything) to use to blame him for this situation. Like not listening to talks about a dozen contradictory parenting books, for example. Like not putting the six year old in her own bed for mommy...even though that doesn't seem to be the problem.

I get the sense that you are being intentionally obtuse.

"Putting her to bed for mommy?" Really?

You think that mommy should be putting the 6 year old to bed instead of daddy? Guess what? She is! That is not working for him. If he wants the face-kicking 6 year old in another bed. he should put her to bed in the other room.

Not because it is choreplay or being wrong or right or anything else. He should do it because it is taking a positive action to the get the desired result that he stated he wants.

If he wanted his socks in another drawer he should move his own damn socks. And keep moving them until the new normal is achieved.

Even fairly oblivious people can catch a clue. LW's wife might be one of them.

"Dude. You jumped right past the point. He isn't sacrificing himself on the altar if he is building and enjoying a stronger marriage."

Um, no, you're twisting what I wrote. You wrote, and here I quote directly, that LW is required to be devoted to that goal "ALWAYS". I wrote "no not always, not if it means sacrificing his own happiness entirely, even though I agree we haven't necessarily reached that point yet in this case". Your response? 'He isn't sacrificing his happiness IF he is building and enjoying a stronger marriage'. Um, OK, yes, but that's exactly what I just said, and is the opposite of what you originally said that I was responding to --- you originally said, and I quote again, "Always", now you've scaled down to "if (certain conditions)". Basically, you've back-pedaled from your original position, but tried to twist it as if I had said something wrong by taking my words out of context when in fact you're now agreeing with me. But OK, nothing wrong with backpedaling when you realize you're wrong.

"That is not working for him. If he wants the face-kicking 6 year old in another bed. he should put her to bed in the other room. ... He should do it because it is taking a positive action to the get the desired result that he stated he wants. If he wanted his socks in another drawer he should move his own damn socks. And keep moving them until the new normal is achieved."

Yup, here I agree with you completely.

"I think, if many divorced parents were honest, they'd admit that they sold out their kids just a little (or a lot) for their own happiness."

I don't think that's necessarily even something to be ashamed of. I don't believe that choosing to become a parent means you *must* commit to a lifetime of misery *if* your relationship really is well and truly not fixable, after you've really exhausted all attempts to fix it. I also don't think children are always better off if the parents are miserable. Most divorces may well have been fixable today, yes, but I'm speaking in principle here.

"Generations before us stayed married no matter what - through abusive and sexless marriages, wars and long absences. They wouldn't understand a lot of our self-absorbed reasons for bailing on marriages today."

A couple of points:
- Generations before us had more of a culture of actually making an effort and working towards making a relationship work (since divorce was unusual and more stigmatized, they were necessarily more so rather than giving up at the first sign of trouble). That culture has largely died and been replaced with both a 'me me me' entitlement culture and expectations that if a happy relationship doesn't happen automatically all by itself, it 'isn't meant to be'. It's fine and well for one person to want to make an effort to make a relationship work but it's hopeless when only one person does so. When the whole culture has shifted towards slightly different values, an individual can only do so much to fight it ... if your SO is self-absorbed and selfish, you usually can't make them not be.

- In more serious cases, e.g. suffering through years of abuse, I would argue that staying together may have been a bad thing even in those 'good old days'. You say these abused parents 'stuck it through' as if it was a good thing but in fact many children were harmed by growing up in abusive homes and might have ultimately been better off if the parents had not 'stuck it through'.

"I don't know if you can necessarily tell by the other women's reactions whether they can spot a player or not."

Sure, but I can tell when someone says 'he is so obviously a player, can't you see it' and they emphatically deny that he is. Or do you mean, they lie?

So I read through a lot of the Julia Grey website that Amy P. linked to up-thread a ways. I thought it was pretty good; there were bits I agreed and bits not so much. But one thing she said really resonated with me. I'll address it to the LW and re-state a bit as I understand it.

LW: The problem you have is that your spouse does not perceive that there is a problem. She is not unhappy (apparently); only you are unhappy. Therefore, waiting on her to do something different is not going to accomplish anything. The only way that anything is going to change is by you taking action. That seems unfair, but note that although you are not solely responsible for the success of the marriage, you are solely responsible for your own happiness. Therefore, you taking action is the only way forward if you expect anything to change.

So make an effort to start correcting the parts of the situation that you can control. Take charge of the six-year-old's bedtime; that is something you can do. And to the extent that you can, try to help out your wife with the nursing and bedding of the infant. And anything else around the house that has been a sore point between you and your wife, take charge of it for a while. But do it the way you think it should be done. Do ask your wife if you don't know how to do the task, but don't be constantly referring back to her just because you aren't doing it exactly the way she would do it.

In the meantime, think about what it means to you to be a man, and then work on being the best man you can be, by your own definition. Get involved in things outside of the household to the extent that you think is appropriate. Take up some volunteer work; maybe coach or officiate in an amateur sports league, or become a museum tour guide, or some such. Or take up a hobby or start a side business. Do something that will be yours, rather than just being a responsibility for the household. Work on being a better person. Do some professional development. Do some serious reading. Get those extra ten pounds off.

Now here's the thing: your wife may respond positively to these changes, or she may not. At some point in the future, you will have to make a decision about the future of the marriage. If all of this improves the marriage and your wife moves back in the direction of being your wife again, gravy. If she doesn't, then you will be much better positioned, mentally and emotionally, for what will have to come next, whether that be divorcing now, or gutting it out until the children are grown. Remember, anytime you rely on someone else to make you happy, you're bound to be disappointed. Take charge of your own life.

Laura GR

Allow me to clarify. It has been my position the entire post that since it is dad's issue that the six year old is in his bed, it is his to repair by putting her into another bed. HE should do the heavy lifting here since mom is 'SO tired'.

But I get the sense that mom doesn't WANT the kid in another bed. If the LW does actually move her, I think it wife would yell at him to stop, undercutting his efforts, authority, and subverting his desires for a low child density in the bed.

So as far as I can see, the child isn't the base problem.

I thought that was clear but I guess not.

Flydye- I think you are reading your own prejudices into the very meager letter. There is so much unsaid in the letter, it is actually hard to get a handle on what is going on in the house other than a very bare bones outline.
6 year old karate kid in bed.
Dad chose to sleep in the other room to get more sleep.
Mom did not respond when dad made an attempt at discussion.
Dad is not happy with the quantity of sex he's getting with wife.
Dad doesn't know how to achieve his desire of kid in her own bed and more intimacy with wife.

If that new baby is 2 or 3 months old?? Dad is a selfish twit. Mom hasn't hardly healed up physically let alone normalized the extra crazy sauce of hormones and exhaustion that comes from brewing up a whole new human.

If that baby is 9, 12, 17 months old?? Whole different ballgame. Not enough info in the letter to know for sure.

The really extra cool thing about giving some time to the situation while he works on bed-breaking the 6 year old and learning and practicing some better methods of communication is that most of the very common problems new mothers have and this woman may have tend to diminish or disappear by the time that baby is about 12 months old. +/-

Ideally, the solution should be win/win/win for dad/mom/kids. That is the best outcome. Mom and dad, happy and together. Working towards that is the best thing to do.

Lovelysoul,

Yes, it seems like you misunderstood what I was saying, but I can see where the misunderstanding happened. I wasn’t originally clear enough in what I meant.

I agree with you that the quality of familial relationships can be affected by the relationships that exist with others in the family.

A reasonable parent does not allow their negative feelings toward the other parent leech into the child’s perceptions in a direct way though.

What matters to children isn’t whether or not their parents are romantically involved, or even living in the same home. What matters to children is that their parents seem to get along and are working together to provide a healthy environment for them to grow up in.

Now this is often easiest when the parents love and respect one another, but if they are dedicated enough and aware of how their actions influence their children there is no reason for any of the parents relationships with the children to be poisoned in the event of a separation.

Obviously this is an ideal description of how things should play out, and most people aren’t mature enough to behave this way, but there it is.

“In that sense, the mother-child relationship does take precedence.”

This is a very poorly constructed argument so I will briefly explain the problem with it and then pretend I didn’t see it. “Nursing” is not a relationship, it is a biological function that serves to bond the mother to the baby, but that is essentially a one way street. The baby does not become bonded to the mother by virtue of the act of breastfeeding. To argue that would be to argue that mothers who do not breast feed have an inferior or nonexistent relationship with their infants (which is of course something we know not to be true).

Babies bond to the adults who take care of them whether they are breast fed or not.

You don’t get to assert that because breast feeding bonds a mother to the baby that makes the mother-child relationship take precedence. To suggest that is to suggest that the importance of any relationship is determined only from the perspective of the mother and that the child’s perspective is immaterial.

To say that the mother-child relationship takes precedence due to the act of nursing is to project the feelings of the mother onto the infant. If the father were to provide substantial care for the baby there is no reason to believe that the baby would be any less bonded to the father.

“Generations before us stayed married no matter what - through abusive and sexless marriages, wars and long absences. They wouldn't understand a lot of our self-absorbed reasons for bailing on marriages today.”

Generations before us didn’t live much beyond 30. Staying married for a lifetime when you lived to 35 was comparatively easy considering we have an average life span close to double that value.

“That is the point LW needs to be. His kids are very young. Their personalities and resiliencies are untested. He needs to weigh this very carefully - what divorce would do to them at this stage as well as what it will do to him financially and emotionally.”

Yes, but you are ignoring the opportunity cost here.

The justification for a divorce in such a scenario isn’t that everything is going to turn out great and be all roses and sunshine. The justification is that the outlook of their well being is superior with a dissolution of the relationship.

If the LW’s wife absolutely refuses to discuss anything related to parenting and dictates the terms of everything when it comes to the children then she is being an abusive spouse.

That isn’t a good situation for the children to have as their only exposure to a mature adult relationship.

Laura Gr.

Let's start with where we agree.

IF he can talk her into therapy, get her treated with any ailments that the posters are making up out of whole cloth; IF she decides to communicate with her husband and IF she agrees that the six year old needs her own bed, then yes, he should give her a year to show that she's reformed and that she is dedicated to the relationship. (A lot of 'If's')

Please note: I am NOT saying he should wait a year for any results! If she doesn't show willing very very quickly to at least try to fix the issues, he should spend the rest of the year doing exactly what Cousin Dave suggested with a soupcon of asset hiding and making lots of friends with single females. (Just platonically initially) If she spends even a few months just totally stonewalling him, then I think we could agree that he needs to start plan B.

I am also NOT saying that I expect these things to be fixed in a month or two. But if there is no progress at all on her part, he needs to set himself up for another life.

So a solution predicated on therapy, counseling and apologies for the crap she's been putting him through might work.

But I don't see him just holding firm for a year as a solution. Let's say in the course of a year of him being available, she finally unwedges her legs enough for him to have the occcasional quickie. What exactly has that shown except that she can treat him like crap, hormones or no? I do not see hormones as a 'get out of jail free' card without a bit of repentence later. She can't help feeling that way, but she certainly better be self aware enough to be siincerely sorry afterwards.

One question was asked: What does he gain by bailing? Nothing.

He doesn't get a darned thing. He loses his wife, his home his children and a large piece of change.

It is what he gets to keep: a shred of self respect, because she certainly seems intent on taking the last of that from him as well.

Isn't pride a deadly sin? Well, yes. I wonder how wifely disdain scores. Because all the things that are going to be inflicted on the man will hit the woman just as hard. Why is the question always 'Isn't the marriage worth a year to him?' instead of 'Is a six year old in bed and an uncomfortable conversation worth HER marriage?' She had better be as clueless as LS is suggesting because if not, then we already know her answer.

And Laura GR, are you reading any of Amy A's responses?

She has NO interest in letting hubby move the six. Not that he won't. She won't let him.

Co-bedding is awesome, so is attachment parenting-so long as it doesn't get in the way of the attachment you have with your spouse. I knew a couple that practiced co bedding and had all kinds of hot sex- in the garage, the kitchen, the car, you name it. Co bedding isn't the problem. If the LW was getting some he probably wouldn't have time to be writing Amy at all :D He's probably just not very sexy. If he was, wifie would be tip toeing out of bed for a rendezvous on the patio furniture.

lovelysoul,

I agree that prior generations had marriages that lasted longer. They also had a church, state and all family members pushing hard for that to continue.

These institutions (Up to and including family) also ignored little things like spousal rape, abuse, alchoholism, and double standard infidelity.

So, yes, if the man cleaved to that earlier age, there wouldn't be a problem because his wife WOULD be putting out...or she would have 'run into a lot of doors.'

He WOULD be sexually satisfied...just not by her.

If we are going to look at the pluses, let's be fair with the negatives too. Would you rather be a housewife of today or of the Twenties?

"don't think that's necessarily even something to be ashamed of. I don't believe that choosing to become a parent means you *must* commit to a lifetime of misery *if* your relationship really is well and truly not fixable, after you've really exhausted all attempts to fix it. I also don't think children are always better off if the parents are miserable. Most divorces may well have been fixable today, yes, but I'm speaking in principle here."

I think, even after having done it, that choosing divorce is still kind of a shot in the dark. It's been 4 years since my divorce and about 7 since we first separated, and I've just begun to accept that my kids came out of it ok.

My recent remarriage confirmed that we were all, in fact, probably better off - seeing my kids so happy and my son getting along so well with my new husband (they even work together) finally gave me the peace that I'd made the right decision. But when you're in that moment of making the choice to break up your family, with your own unhappiness looming so large, it's impossible to predict how it will go for the kids - you suspect YOU will be much happier, but their lives are going to be thrown into chaos.

And, as I said, my kids were older, and therefore didn't have to endure the custody/visitation battles that can become so prevalent in the lives of young children. Personally, I could've never chosen divorce when my children were that young because my controlling ex would've made it totally miserable. In fact, I left at one point but reconciled with him to keep the peace for a few more years. I put my own happiness aside until I felt more comfortable that my kids were strong enough to endure the stormy breakup that was inevitable.

I suspect that LW is dealing with someone with a similar personality disorder and control issues, which virtually guarantees that his divorce isn't going to be one of those smooth, cooperative, "positive" experiences - at least at first. His kids are at such an age that they can (and likely will) be used as pawns.

That's just something he needs to consider. Yes, he deserves well-being and happiness too, but that may prove harder to attain in the midst of an ugly divorce while watching his children suffer.

"If we are going to look at the pluses, let's be fair with the negatives too. Would you rather be a housewife of today or of the Twenties?"

Absolutely now. I'm obviously happy I had the choices I did, but I still had to make them within the constraints of the choices I had ALREADY made. I brought my kids into that relationship. They didn't ask to be there. LW did too. His FIRST priority is to his children, not his own happiness.

Again, Flydye, the lady isn't here. We can't tell her "She should do x, she should do y"... she isn't here! Sure, there are lots of things she should do... but she isn't here to hear our list of suggestions.

You know what? I would love to hear exactly what you would suggest to this woman. This is not sarcastic or a snark.

You've had quite a bit to say to the man about what he could and should do. I'd be interested in hearing some of the 'straight talk' girl to girl on what you'd tell the wife.

And Laura GR, are you reading any of Amy A's responses?

I've read all of Amy's responses. And by not mentioning even once the 900 pound gorilla in the room (known issues/problems of new mom/infant), and sticking solely to what her area of interest, I feel that the whole picture is not being considered.

Amy obviously has more info she's not sharing for the sake of brevity, but she left a lot out. Maybe too much.

The LW has about 6 concerns and the letter gives about a sentence to each when each one probably deserves its own paragraph or more. The dude and his wife have a LOT going on. It isn't simple and won't be a simple fix.

Also, Amy says the wife will not talk to her husband about the family bed deal. And also says that the wife feels very strongly about the subject. That implies there was some sort of communication or how would he know? You cannot claim no communication and strong message sent and not be questioning the mixed signals.

This is why I think the dude (and his wife) have a great need to work on clear communication. Luckily, that is the best first step to resolving most issues.

Also, Amy and I were typing at the same time for that last reply of hers.

LauraGr Says:

"Also, Amy says the wife will not talk to her husband about the family bed deal. And also says that the wife feels very strongly about the subject. That implies there was some sort of communication or how would he know?"

I'm not sure why what is going on here is confusing you.

What Amy said is the following:

"The mother does NOT want the kids in another bed, and refuses to discuss it at all."

This makes it pretty clear what has happened.

The wife decided that she wants the children to sleep in the bed. The husband does not want the children to sleep in the bed.

The husband approaches his wife to discuss the issue and she responds by saying something along the following lines:

"I don't care that you want the children to sleep in their own bed. I want them in this bed and this isn't an issue that is up for debate."

That is the only sort of "communication" that needs to take place to obtain the story we are hearing. There is nothing inconsistent with the notion that the wife won't talk to her husband about this issue but that something about it was said.

A dictator does not have discussions with their subjects, but they certainly say a great deal and are good at issuing orders.

Giving commands is not "communicating", and quite frankly that isn't exactly the husbands failing or even something he can necessarily change. He could be the greatest communicator on earth and still fail to communicate with a person who sticks their fingers in their ears.

It is sometimes impossible to communicate with someone if they adamantly refuse to hear what you have to say.

So while I agree that he should try to communicate with his wife, and refuse to accept her "my way or the highway" stance, ultimately she still might not care to listen to anything he has to say.

"The wife decided that she wants the children to sleep in the bed. The husband does not want the children to sleep in the bed."

But one question is did he agree to this co-sleeping initially? Did they mutually decide when their first child was born that they would "co-sleep", and, if so, wasn't anything discussed about how long this would be?

If he initially agreed with the co-sleeping concept, but has now changed his mind, I can see why she would feel that's unfair and not open to debate until whatever point they agreed it would stop.

That is a critical thing to know. What is the stopping age? If they embraced this parenting philosophy together and the co-sleeping gurus recommend that you do it until, say, age 8, then that's what he signed on for.

Yet, it sounds like he has no idea when this is supposed to end. Has anybody here tried co-sleeping? Is there a recommended age to phase the older chilren out of the "family bed" or are you supposed to keep them there until college?

I will say that there are times when one parent may make a unilateral decision on childrearing. I remember being at odds once with my ex about what school the children would attend. I knew one school was best for our son, given his Aspergers, but my husband just didn't see it, so I just made the call. We couldn't both have our way in that instance. There wasn't a compromise.

He bitched about it at the time - and told me that if things turned out badly it was all on me, which I accepted - but later he acknowledged I'd made the right choice.

It's possible that the LW's wife has some valid reason to feel this strongly about continuing the co-sleeping. But, obviously, that's totally separate from having sex with her husband, which she could still find a way to do.

lovelysoul,

I think the difference between your situation and this one is that you probably had a discussion with your ex on this issue. You guys probably hashed out the issues and ultimately came to a decision.

I agree that sometimes in a relationship there is no compromise available. Sometimes it has to be done one way or another. However you still never should shut the door to a conversation about the issue.

That door should also never be shut in the event new details come into play. Many decisions have to be fluid and dynamic.

As such even if he did agree to the co-sleeping thing when the six year old was born (something we don't even know is true), clearly there is new evidence at hand now that can and should be talked about.

In particular, if he is working and the six year old keeps disturbing his ability to sleep by kicking him in the face, this is a relevent thing to consider that wasn't necessarily in the discussion six years prior.

I don't like the idea that relationship decisions need to be treated like binding contracts that never change because someone signed on the bottom line. Relationship decisions should never be "gotcha" contracts that prevent adjustments and flexibility.

I mean, along the same lines, for all we know when they got married they agreed to have sex far more often than practically never. Clearly no one here is advocating that the wife would need to be bound to such an agreement baring all extnuating circumstances.

In fact people are bending over backwards to list all of the possible extenuating circumstances that the LW needs to consider (i.e. depression, nursing, new infant... etc.)

No one is particularly concerned about a prior agreement because they recognize in this case that sometimes things change.

That same thinking would apply to co-sleeping, so it honestly doesn't matter if he agreed to it six years ago or not. It isn't working now and it deserves to be discussed.

It is unreasonable of the LW's wife to shut down all conversation on this topic.

I agree that they should discuss it, Reality, but it seems that they must have discussed it somewhat because Amy says he wants her out of the bed and the wife wants her in it. So, when he says she "refuses to even discuss it", what he's really saying is that her mind is made up and she refuses to change it.

Now, I agree that is foolish on her part, but that is, to some degree, because I don't understand "co-sleeping." But, if we were talking about some other issue that mothers feel strongly about, such as breastfeeding, I would probably see the inflexibility more favorably.

There isn't really a compromise in these situations. Either you breastfeed or you don't. Either you co-sleep or you don't. If a husband decided he wanted the breastfeeding to stop, we'd probably all be saying that was ridiculous and the mother has the right to choose when the right weaning time should be (unless it was 12 or something crazy)

But, either way, one parent is going to "win" the argument and get their way because there isn't a middle ground. So, in a sense, it's kind of like my situation in that, once decided, there wasn't any point in discussing it because the only aim for a discussion would be to try to change the other person's mind.

In our case, there weren't any other school choices, so either he was going to prevail or I was, and I flatly decided that, on THIS issue, I was. I felt that strongly about what was best for my children's educational needs, and I was more knowledgable about the choices. End of discussion.

This mother REALLY believes in co-sleeping, and he doesn't. That's rather tough because even if he prevails and gets the kids out of the bed, she's going to be full of resentment that she didn't get to raise her children with the parenting style she feels is best for them.

The middle ground seems to be that they agree to have sex in another room, or during the day, with a certain frequency that he can accept, and continue to sleep separately.

"If a husband decided he wanted the breastfeeding to stop, we'd probably all be saying that was ridiculous and the mother has the right to choose when the right weaning time should be (unless it was 12 or something crazy)"

I have to say that, to me, this idea of a six-year-old sleeping with the parents is almost equivalent to breast-feeding a 12-year-old. Six isn't a little bit too old to be in the parents' bed; it's way way way way way way way way way too old, and the fact that the LW's wife thinks it's a good ideal tells me, in itself, that she's got serious problems. I find it very creepy, bordering on child abuse.

First, while they mention co-sleeping, it isn't evident that it is a critical life style choice on her part, just something she wants done. We are putting a lot on one word, though maybe Amy could clarify if she has any reasons. She tends to cut the fat out of her missives but at times I fear she nicks the bone.

Next up: Cousin Dave is correct. If the husband said that his wife couldn't breastfeed her infant, we'd all be up in arms. Heck, if the wife wanted the infant in the bed and the husband didn't, I'd be against him (while still granting that she owes him a bit of intimacy occasionally). I GET IT. Wives get tired with late night feedings. The infant being in bed is important.

But he ISN'T arguing about the infant. He is compromising. It is the same if the wife was demanding to breastfeed a six year old.

And as I've said: is it worth her marriage? Would you have divorced your husband over your kids school choice? (Well, granted you didn't have the happiest of marriages...) Is her daughter going to turn into the next Andrea Yates because she isn't in bed with Mommy?

And I strongly doubt that this woman is such a 'family bed' fanatic. If she were, she'd want ALL of them in the bed! Otherwise, what's the point if Dad isn't there bonding too?

Do we have any sense that the wife is upset that the husband is gone? It's like saying that one is a Muslim who happens to like his beer and BLT sandwiches.

@Amy Alkon

Could you please answer two questions

When did the 6 year old move into the bed?

Is the mother using 'family bed' philosophy to support her demands or is it just a case of her wanting the kids in bed with the minimum of drama (and sex)?

Lovelysoul says:

“I agree that they should discuss it, Reality, but it seems that they must have discussed it somewhat because Amy says he wants her out of the bed and the wife wants her in it. So, when he says she "refuses to even discuss it", what he's really saying is that her mind is made up and she refuses to change it.”

This is as silly as saying that when a police officer pulls you over to issue you a ticket that you and the officer had a “discussion” about the ticket. Sure there was a verbal exchange, but this isn’t what people usually mean by a discussion when talking about discussing things with their husband/wife.

There is a fundamental difference between a legitimate discussion where both parties sit down, hear each other out, and then ultimately settle on a decision (even if that decision is pretty much doing what one side wants over the other) and just talking at someone.

These sorts of discussions happen between couples all the time. Even on rather mundane and unimportant stuff like where to go out for dinner. Clearly if both people want to go to different places one or both of them isn’t going to eat where they would prefer. However the dynamics of the discussion within a healthy relationship shouldn’t include things like “we are eating where I want to eat because I said so… end of discussion!!!”. Someone who approaches a conversation with their spouse that way is being abusive and controlling.

Going back to my original example, while the police officer might in fact be talking to you when he issues you a ticket, the officer isn’t actually having a discussion with you. The officer is telling you how it is going to be and you just have to accept it because they are in a position of power over you.

The fact that the wife might have told her husband how things were going to be and that he just has to accept it doesn’t mean a real discussion took place. She’s just calling the shots and bossing him around, that isn’t the sort of discussion healthy couples have.

To having a meaningful discussion in a relationship you have to approach the discussion with a willingness to hear the other person out. If that willingness isn’t there then you are dictating, you are commanding, you are bossing… but you aren’t “discussing” anything.

LW might have been all on board for the co-sleeping right up to the point that he was consistently losing sleep. Or just accepting. Or totally bulldozed. Or meh.

He didn't just wake up with a 6 year old in his bed and say "Woopsy! I guess we forgot to put her to be 4 years ago. How awkward."

He played some part in it for a long time. He and wifey definitely need to have a conversation about the family bed not containing part of the family. A clue!

Let him own his actions. And his inactions. They are all part of this mess.

And to answer someone else's inquiry about the family bed...

My family co-slept for about 3.5 years. I also nursed my son for 2 years 10 months. He was allergic to all formulas and cow's milk and refused goat milk. So I was IT for a very long time. I guess I could have looked for ostrich milk or something but breast milk was easier to find. Right there all day every day.

Getting the lad out of the big bed and into his own bed was very difficult. It was me that wanted him out. The little darling would grind his teeth all night, sounding like fingernails on a chalkboard. Ack! Hubby was fine with sharing the bed. He loved the closeness. Especially since he was working awful overtime and hardly saw him during our son's awake time for many months.

Hubby was okay with moving the lad into his own room once he figured out a well-rested wife was a whole lot easier to live with. We did not follow the path of LW and his spouse.

The lad was a harder sell. ...huge understatement.

I have a 2 year old, 4 year old, and two 7 year olds. All slept in a cosleeper when infants. All end up in my bed reasonably often now (some nights just one, rarely none, occasionally all of them). Generally, they appear in the night with no fuss and climb in. Sometimes for some reason we start them out there. It's simply easier, and I like them to feel mommy and daddy are there for them whenever they happen to need the closeness.

But, there are nights when we say "tonite is mommy/daddy time and no one is sleeping with us tonite". And there are nights we have sex quietly in our locked bathroom when our bed is full. No biggie.

I'd have to say from what Amy gave us, she simply doesn't want intimacy with hubby and the kid is her shield. Counseling is needed here. I didn't want sex for at least 6 months, if not longer, after any of mine. I did it, occasionally, but didn't want it. It gets better. But not if they can't talk about it.

You have no reason to accuse me of this, flydye, and your comment above is unintelligible. The woman refuses to discuss this with her husband. You don't get to do that in a marriage. If you are into making unilateral decisions, you stay single and childless.

Amy,

Allow me to clarify then.

There is a vast difference between the wife saying "I am endangering my marriage because I want Little Lump and Sixy to have the best life possible, end of discussion" and "I want the kids in bed because I want the kids in bed, end of discussion." Many of the women here are...not justifying but trying to understand her attitudes by offering the family bed as an excuse.

I believe that she is taking the later tack, hence not a 'critical lifestyle decision'. She might be wrong to do this from a 'family bed' standpoint, but it's certainly more understandable then just because she wants to.

But let me get to the crux of my 'insult'. At least a dozen times, people have said "it's not clear how long this is going on" or "he's been putting up with this for six years" etc.

We don't know when the six year old came into the bed. Again, there is a vast difference between a man having slept with a child for 5 years and suddenly on year six saying 'Enough' (i.e. the wife has a certain confusion at the change in heart); and mom saying 'She's feeling neglected so she's coming in no matter how you feel, cause you're easier to neglect.'

The first is a major change in attitude of the dad.

The second is a major change in attitude of the mom.

I don't see how it's contentious or insulting for me to say 'this point is unclear or undefined' when this point is unclear and undefined. As you just said about my prose: sometimes the meaning isn't as clear as the writer would like it to be.

I think the issue isn't whether or not the child is in the bed because as Momof4's post clearly shows, a couple can have a bedfull and still be intimate. So, the main issue is that they aren't having sex.

And I kind of agree with flydye that there are some things left out of the letter that would be helpful to know. How old is the youngest? Did she just have a baby or is it an 18 month old?

If she just had a baby, the LW is being unreasonable to expect her to be sexy for him and kick the older child out at a stage when she's probably already feeling jealous of the new baby's attachment to mom. I would imagine that would fly against co-sleeping philosophy, and even if she's not following any particular "family bed" style of parenting, it's still common sense.

But, it also would be helpful to know whether this is a style of parenting that they've been following for years, and, if so, it may not be so wrong for her to say, "We've already discussed this" and refuse to change things until the style is complete (at whatever age co-sleeping is supposed to end).

I mean, using M4 as an example, it would be the same as her husband suddenly asking for a rule that the kids could no longer crawl into bed with them or sleep there through the night when that's what they've already been doing for years.

He could suggest that, but my guess is that this wouldn't be well-received by M4.

And none of this addresses the real issue, which is the lack of sex. I think LW would do better focusing on that instead of trying to change his wife's sleeping or parenting style at this point.

For whatever reason, she's pretty entrenched in this stand, so it doesn't sound like he's going to get his way on that one. Sometimes, couples come to an empasse and one just has to back down.

If she's that inflexible on everything, there's a big problem, but we don't know that either. I'm the easiest-going person in most areas of life, but, like I said, when it comes to what I believe is best for my kids, there are points over which I'm just not willing to concede.

But LW can still get what HE wants, which is more sex. He needs to separate that from the "co-sleeping" issue, at least right now. He needs to tell his wife - clearly and bluntly - that his sexual needs are not being met and this must to be addressed somehow or their marriage is in trouble.

That's assumming she didn't just give birth 6 weeks ago, in which case, she will (justifiably) probably kick him out of the house.

Just a few additional comments:

Firstly, I think Amy is 100% on target when she says the following:

“If you are into making unilateral decisions, you stay single and childless.”

When you are married the whole notion of calling all of the shots on your own goes out the window. The kind of commitment implied by a marriage is a commitment to make important life decisions together, not for one person to make important life decisions for the other partner.

If someone is so bossy and unwilling to discuss important life decisions with someone else then they really have no business getting married in the first place.

When you are single you get to make any decision you like (within the law of course), that kind of “freedom” goes out the window when you are married because the other person is affected by every important decision you make. Their input isn’t optional.

Secondly, I am noting a trend in the arguments that is not consistent and it boils down to the following question:

Are agreements and understandings within a marriage debatable and or changeable after the agreements and understandings have been established?

The inconsistency comes in because for some posters the answer to the above question seems to depend upon what agreement we are talking about.

For example, many posters have posited that this whole co-sleeping thing must have been agreed to by the husband at some point; therefore he is bound to continue with it. It simply doesn’t matter if new details emerge, or if new and unforeseen features crop up that would allow a reasonable person to want to rethink things. Many see this potential agreement as binding and immutable, that if he agreed to this arrangement at any point he is stuck with it forever and no discussion is warranted. It doesn’t matter if he is being sleep deprived because of it, it doesn’t matter if he has been ejected from his own bed because of it, these factors are apparently immaterial and if he even so much as nodded his head to it six years ago he has to abide by that agreement.

However, many of the same posters then argue that marital agreements and understandings with regard to sex can and should change depending upon the specific circumstances. They posit things like depression, nursing, new infant issues… etc. And as a result any former agreements or understandings they had are null and void and a new arrangement is warranted.

These two points of view when taken together are contradictory and inconsistent because they take opposing stances upon the very fundamental question I posed above.

Either new factors can change prior agreements within a marriage or they cannot. They can’t warrant adjustments in one case but be unimportant in another. A discussion is still justified in both cases.

Since the child co-sleeping is kind of like Schrodinger's cat, the kid is in the bed or out of the bed but not in a state partially in between.

So is the guy saying the wife won't communicate because she won't change her mind when he wants to continue the discussion until he "wins"?

Because if he wants the kid out and the wife wants the kid in there will only be one "winner" of that contest. No partway compromise. Dubious win but I will use the word for consistency.

Not that I believe they are going about this drama in the most productive manner but it is be being told from the "loser" point of view without input from the other player.

The whole drama feels like a script we are reading with numerous missing pages.

LauraGr,

I feel like you keep manipulating the details we have been given to fit a narritive you prefer instead of the one that requires the fewest assumptions on our part.

For example, this statement requires lots of extrapolation:

"So is the guy saying the wife won't communicate because she won't change her mind when he wants to continue the discussion until he "wins"?"

How exactly did you jump from what Amy said here:

"The mother does NOT want the kids in another bed, and refuses to discuss it at all."

To your interpretation?

It seems to me that you are pulling at straws to make the LW's wife as reasonable as possible. That she talked about it with him and simply because she doesn't agree that he is now declaring that she won't discuss it at all. Afterall, as you put it, we are only being told the "loser" point of view.

You seem to really resist the prospect that the LW's wife might in fact be completely unreasonable here.

The evidence we have points to the fact that his wife is actually being quite unreasonable.

However you would prefer to think that he is either lying or distorting things because you refuse to accept the very real possibility that she could be stonewalling him.

Sure we might be missing pages from this story, but that doesn't mean we get to fill in the blanks with whatever details suit our fancy.

Reality- No. I am not just trying to fill in the blanks to suit me. It it is more of a commentary that there are HUGE blanks and little data and more than one thing going on that influences behaviour.

If you hear hoofs clopping, think horses not zebras. Or coconuts.

He has a nursing mom he's having issues with so I think that one of the first things to consider is common issues with new moms. I think that is the most reasonable first assumption rather than mom is a militant, noncommunicative and controlling family bed bitch. Which she may also be true but is somewhat further down the likely list of factors, if simply based on numbers.

"Because if he wants the kid out and the wife wants the kid in there will only be one "winner" of that contest. No partway compromise. Dubious win but I will use the word for consistency."

Exactly my point too, Laura. There's no compromise on the co-sleeping, so discussing it will be futile.

"When you are married the whole notion of calling all of the shots on your own goes out the window. The kind of commitment implied by a marriage is a commitment to make important life decisions together, not for one person to make important life decisions for the other partner."

Ideally, that's how it goes, but, in practice, most couples divide final authority over decision-making into different areas.

I don't make decisions about our yard or planting things, or what tools to buy, because I know nothing about that, and my husband doesn't tell me how to stock our kitchen or what cooking utensils to use or what color to paint the living room. We each have our different areas of control.

Childrearing is obviously tougher, as both parents feel an equal investment, but, like with the educational issue I mentioned, usually one has done more homework and is therefore better informed on the matter at hand or more personally effected. In most childrearing issues, that was me, and so my husband eventually conceded that I should make those decisions, right or wrong. We'd still discuss them, but if there was a disagreement, I held the trump card.

I mean, he wanted the kids in a private school, and I wanted them in a public school. We couldn't BOTH win that argument because, like this situation, there was no compromise. Discussing it only lead to fights.

Also, on matters of safety, I didn't always discuss things. My ex is a guy who likes to live dangerously. He believes "when your time is up, it's up!". So, he'd want to take the kids to do risky things like skydiving or bungee jumping. Hey, you only live once, right?

But I said no to a lot of that - end of discussion. Sometimes, "no" is a discussion.

It sounds to me that on childrearing issues LW's wife believes she should have the final say. Many mothers feel that way. It's not that unusual. If she's breasfeeding and caring for the children full-time, she feels that's her area.

So, he's just not going to "win" the co-sleeping battle. He needs to try to work around it, and still get what he wants - more sex.

lovelysoul says:

"Exactly my point too, Laura. There's no compromise on the co-sleeping, so discussing it will be futile."

So based upon this perspective he would be perfectly justified to just move the six year old out of the bed himself and tell his wife that this is the way it is going to be and that there is no discussion.

I don't think this fits into the "best practices" motif we were discussing the other day.

It isn't ever "best practices" to just not discuss something with your spouse and do whatever you want.

Why are you suddenly advocating for this sort of bullying tactic in a marriage when just the other day you were giving lectures about morality and ethics?

LauraGr,

You keep harping on the nursing mom thing, but what on earth does the fact that she has a new baby have to do with the fact that there is a six year old in the bed that is preventing her father from sleeping in his own room?

Being a new mother doesn’t give her cart blanche to make whatever wacky unilateral decisions she wants.

To use your analogy, you are being shown a picture of a dog and you are declaring it to be a kitten.

The nursing mom argument would be great if there was only an infant in this scenario, but there isn’t and the infant is never even mentioned as a complaint in the original letter.

Please read this part again:

“I've quit sharing the "family bed," as I need my rest. I fully believe that my daughter should go to her own bed now. My wife does not agree. In fact, she refuses to even discuss it.”

What exactly does any of this have to do with breastfeeding or being a new mother?

This is the part I am addressing and the part that seems the most obviously wrong and all I keep seeing is excuses about unrelated aspects of the letter.

"Why are you suddenly advocating for this sort of bullying tactic in a marriage when just the other day you were giving lectures about morality and ethics?"

There's nothing immoral going on here. This couple, like many couples, has hit an impasse. They both can't have their way on the co-sleeping issue. You may believe that LW should prevail on this issue, but obviously, his wife doesn't agree, and co-sleeping is what they've already been doing for apparently 6 years.

Yes, he can move the older child out on his own, but I wouldn't advise that if he wants more sex...which is really what he wants more than to end the co-sleeping...so all I'm suggesting is that he concede the co-sleeping for right now.

Maybe they can set a date to begin that transition. Maybe he can get her to agree that it will begin a few months from now, when the baby is older. But demanding that it happen "right now" isn't getting him anywhere, and that is as much "bullying" as what she is doing, so they both are wrong to dig in their heels over this...and, more importantly, it's not getting him laid.

Somebody needs to diffuse this situation, and since we can only address the LW, it has to be him.

lovelysoul says:

"There's nothing immoral going on here. This couple, like many couples, has hit an impasse. They both can't have their way on the co-sleeping issue. You may believe that LW should prevail on this issue, but obviously, his wife doesn't agree, and co-sleeping is what they've already been doing for apparently 6 years."

Of course they both can't have their way.

The unethical part is that the LW's wife refuses to even discuss the issue. That is the part you keep glossing over.

It isn't that her perspective is prevailing, it is that it is prevailing by fiat.

That is an ethical issue. One spouse does not dictate to the other spouse. That is what is going on here and that is the problem.

Obviously they both can't have their way on this one, but they still need to hash it out. No matter how you slice it, the "best practices" philosophy does not admit this sort of statement into a discussion between spouses:

"We are doing it my way, end of discussion!!!"

Furthermore, this whole notion that since they have been doing it this way for six years he has to accept it forever is a bad argument.

That type of thinking will take the kids from cradel to college in the parents bed. I mean what is the logical difference between what you wrote and the following:

"You may believe that LW should prevail on this issue, but obviously, his wife doesn't agree, and co-sleeping is what they've already been doing for apparently 15 years."

There is no logical difference, it is only a matter of degree.

As a result each year that passes opens up a new opportunity to discuss whether or not it is now time to move the child into a bed of her own.

Just because it has been this was for six years doesn't mean it is valid to continue until age seven. And yet apparently the LW's wife won't even discuss it.

That is the problem, not that she is "winning". It is that she is "winning" the argument by bossing her spouse around and being intransigent and unreasonable.

Surely if she believes the six year old should remain in the bed she has some idea at what age the child should get a bed of her own. However that wasn't part of any discussion that we are aware of.

I don't care if the LW's wife ultimately gets her way after a discussion, the problem is that she refuses to even put the topic up for debate.

Anyone else starting to feel like some of the posters here refuse to admit the possibility that the woman might be in the wrong?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2Rdf0n_Lsg&feature=related

"As a result each year that passes opens up a new opportunity to discuss whether or not it is now time to move the child into a bed of her own."

I don't advise that he wait to find out what age she thinks is appropriate. I'm assuming that when he says she "refuses to discuss it", he means that she is refusing to discuss doing it NOW, not that she is unwilling to discuss her general views of co-sleeping.

If she won't give him some clue about what age she believes is appropriate, then I agree that she's probably a crazy woman intent on having a sexless marriage...or maybe no marriage. Perhaps she hopes he'll leave and is trying her best to drive him off.

I don't know. None of us do. All we know is that she is staunchly opposed to moving the child out of their bed right now. We can theorize as to her reasons for this, but we can't know what they are. Is it just easier? Is she afraid the child will be up a lot at night anyway, and she won't sleep? Is she worried that the child is already having issues adjusting to the new sibling? Or does she just believe that children should sleep near a parent until age X to be well-bonded and secure?

Refusing to discuss it does seem wrong, but, then again, why "hash out" something for which there is no flexibility or compromise? If she knows there's no way she's changing her mind, then agreeing to discuss it would just give him hope that she would, and he'll only be more frustrated when she doesn't.

I mean, how is that going to go? He'll say, "I want the child out now. She's old enough." And mom will say, "I disagree. She's not old enough. I refuse to do it yet." What further details are they going to hash out?

A more productive conversation would be for him to ask, "When do you think she'll be ready for her own bed?" Find out the answer. If she says 15, then he needs to pack his bags. But maybe she'll say, "next month" or "next year." Then, he can say, "Well, what can we do to have more sex until then?"

LauraGr,
You keep harping on the nursing mom thing, but what on earth does the fact that she has a new baby have to do with the fact that there is a six year old in the bed that is preventing her father from sleeping in his own room?

I'm glad you asked. I searched the mighty interwebs with these search terms: common health problems new mothers

And this is the first link:

http://health.infoniac.com/most_common_health_problems_new_moms.html

The new mother aspect is relevant to the conversation because he wants to have a conversation.

And new mothers commonly have these issues, which would make having a life-changing conversation (or sometimes even a productive conversation) less than ideal.

Fatigue
Sleep Deprivation
Postpartum depression
Weight Gain
Sex problems
Hair Loss
Poor memory

Sure, he wants to discuss the 6 year old, but the mom is still dealing with all the weird shit that happens when women are pregnant, go through childbirth and nurse the babies. So ignoring the fact that one half of the couple supposed to be having a reasonable and productive discussion is currently... you know... whacko, tired, depressed, overwhelmed or whatever. It matters because the new mom is who he needs to deal with. Therefore the very common new new mom stuff definitely should be considered when he is driving the conversation.

Not that she gets a pass on bad behaviour, but that there are certain factors that should be considered. Added into the equation. Fill in the big picture.

You would have different expectations of a healthy and able-bodied person than one that had that had been in a car wreck recently and is currently healing but still in pain, worried about permanent disability, on pain killers, worried about future income, worried about paying the bills while collecting lowered disability paychecks. Or no paychecks. Dealing with doctors and deductibles and other serious shit.

Not that they can act like an asshole and get a pass, but that you would consider, at least a bit, that they are not quite at 100% when you plan on having hopefully productive relationship chats.

The medical/emotional issues are common. Very common. Ignoring them won't help LW.

I am not denying his wife might be a big, selfish meanyhead. He might be all right and she is all wrong about everything always. Forever and ever.

I just consider all the exhaustion/ new baby/ hormone whackadoo-ness to be something that should be factored in.

Lovelysoul says:

“I don't advise that he wait to find out what age she thinks is appropriate. I'm assuming that when he says she "refuses to discuss it", he means that she is refusing to discuss doing it NOW, not that she is unwilling to discuss her general views of co-sleeping.”

Who said he should wait?

The point is that if a reasonable discussion took place one would think that she would have informed him the age she thought it was appropriate for the children to move out of their bed. Since this information clearly isn’t available to the LW it is likely that he hasn’t been told, which of course goes back to the point that his wife “refuses” to discuss the subject.

Why on earth would you think he means that she is refusing to discuss doing it NOW? Where do you get that from what Amy has told us? This is what Amy has said:

“The mother does NOT want the kids in another bed, and refuses to discuss it at all.”

There are no qualifiers in that statement, it isn’t that she refuses to discuss moving the kids right this very instant, she refuses to open up the topic to any discussion period.

You are trying very hard to make this woman more reasonable than the evidence we have permits. According to you it really isn’t that she refuses to discuss the topic “at all”, it is that she refuses to discuss moving the children out right now, but she is willing to discuss it in terms of the future.

That perspective violates what Amy has told us, it makes assumptions about the situation that are fabricated out of whole cloth. Yet this is what you rest your entire argument on… your perspective is based upon a presupposition that the information we have been given is incorrect, but that you know how things really went down.

“All we know is that she is staunchly opposed to moving the child out of their bed right now.”

That isn’t all we know. We know that she is staunchly opposed to moving the child out of their bed and that she refuses to talk about her reasons for this and refuses to hear his perspective on why things should be different.

That is the part that bothers me. That is the part that should bother you. It isn’t that she wants the kids in the bed, it is that she won’t even open up the topic to reasonable discussion.

That is an unfair way to act within a marriage. She is wrong for behaving that way. There is no excuse for her behavior in that regard.

“Refusing to discuss it does seem wrong, but, then again, why "hash out" something for which there is no flexibility or compromise? If she knows there's no way she's changing her mind, then agreeing to discuss it would just give him hope that she would, and he'll only be more frustrated when she doesn't.”

Why hash it out? Well for one thing because while there may be absolutely no way of changing her mind he has a right to know that.

Knowing his wife is that intransigent and unwilling to compromise might be a deal breaker for him in terms of a long term relationship and she has no right to keep him in the dark as to just how inflexible she is. If she really is that inflexible, then keeping him in the dark by refusing to hold any conversation about it at all would also make her manipulative and conniving.

No matter how you cut it, her refusal to talk it out with him is not a positive character trait, it is actually inexcusable… so stop making excuses for that part of this story.

You are trying to make out her adamant refusal to even discuss the matter as a positive thing to prevent him from feeling frustrated, talk about bending over backwards to make this woman an angel.

Something tells me you wouldn't appreciate your husband refusing to discuss an important issue with you because he already decided how it was going to be, knew you would dissagree, but didn't want to frustrate you with the hope that you had a snow balls chance in hell of changing his mind.

LauraGr Says:

“The new mother aspect is relevant to the conversation because he wants to have a conversation.
And new mothers commonly have these issues, which would make having a life-changing conversation (or sometimes even a productive conversation) less than ideal.”

Okay… now I get your point. You are saying that science has proven that new mothers lose the ability to think rationally and hold reasonable conversations.

Now I don’t agree with this perspective and could show quite easily that new mothers are indeed capable of rational thought, but let’s assume for one moment that you are correct.

Wouldn’t it stand to reason that if new mothers are so mentally screwed up after the harrowing ordeal of pregnancy, child birth, and nursing that they are utterly incapable of holding intelligent discourse that they should defer on all important issues to their partner?

I mean, based upon your argument he should just get her declared mentally incompetent by the legal system until such a time as her mental faculties are restored.

Now clearly I have taken your argument in a direction you didn’t intend, but I hope that by exaggerating things a bit you get my point that new mothers are not the medical equivalent of dementia patients.

You actually cannot hope to have a meaningful discussion with someone in the late stages of Alzheimers. New mothers don't quite fall into that category and I'm not willing to put them there.

Sheesh.

If the LW wants to have the best chance of directing the conversation/argument/discussion to get the result he desires... he should consider all the factors rather than disregard them. If they impact the goal then they are relevant.

I am not making excuses for the wife. I am tossing out some info that is very common and possibly pertinent.

Call it situational awareness.

"Okay… now I get your point. You are saying that science has proven that new mothers lose the ability to think rationally and hold reasonable conversations"

Amy P actually states this view virtually outright somewhere above in this thread ("I was brought up on a ranch, and mama cows are radically different when they have newborn calves. Normally docile cows are suddenly dangerous and may trample you if you get too close to their babies, but eventually they go back to their placid, cud-chewing usual selves. It's quite humbling to have experienced that mammalian hormonal rollercoaster numerous times oneself and to understand exactly how crazy a woman can get."), and I got the impression a number of women here were implying something similar. They would probably back away from saying new mothers are the 'medical equivalent of dementia patients' but it's always nice to grab onto some notion to the extent that it does suit you, and I think many of the women here are projecting a bit and hoping for a little more leeway when they're going through 'hormonal shit' e.g. after birth or elsewhere. New mothers are probably not clinically insane, but hormones and other pregnancy-related issues can certainly have some effect. My wife's been pretty rational and clear-minded though through the process, I must say.

“The mother does NOT want the kids in another bed, and refuses to discuss it at all.”

I honestly took that as meaning right now. I suppose one could assume it meant forever, like she's planning to keep them there until they're 25, and never discuss it with him, which, of course, would make her a total nutcase.

Trying to give advice to LWs would be very simple if we always took the most extreme interpretation that they were involved with total nutcases, for which there is no hope of recovery, but I prefer to take the approach that this LW's wife isn't that irredeemable. Not an angel, by any means, but not the extremly mentally ill person that you are obviously envisioning.

She may be that mentally ill, in which case, he's screwed anyway, and our suggestions won't make any difference, but, on the chance that she's a basically decent person that he obviously believed sane enough to marry and have children with, I'm giving constructive advice to him that offers some hope for improving his relationship.

Otherwise, we could all just say "get divorced" and move on.

Lobster Says:

"New mothers are probably not clinically insane, but hormones and other pregnancy-related issues can certainly have some effect. My wife's been pretty rational and clear-minded though through the process, I must say."

This is what I would consider to be a reasonable assessment.

Yes women go through hormonal changes during and after pregnancy. Yes these hormonal changes can influence one's mood and/or temperament.

However they do not actually impair their ability to think or hold conversations.

If new mothers really are too irrational to discuss important life decisions then they are too irrational to be making important life decisions.

Similarly, if new mothers are rational enough to make important life decisions then they are rational enough to discuss those decisions.

My issue with the argument that implies that new mothers are incapable of reasoning out or discussing any issues therefore you just have to do as they say is that it implies that they are simultaneously rational enough to make important decisions and yet too irrational to talk about them.

Okay, how about looking at it this way. LW has a goal. He wants to get wife warmed up and feeling loving. He wants a reduction in foot/face contact and an increase of sleep in the bed. Fair enough?

In my reasoning, LW needs to mount a campaign to achieve those goals.

You will note that I did not say the LW is right and wife is wrong. No where in LW's supposed goals is being right brought up. He can be right in a very cold and lonely bed. What he needs is to be smart. He needs to figure out how to achieve his goals. Not figure out how to prove he is right and wife is wrong. If he is very clever, that will never come up. It does not need to be said.

So if he can be aware of what is going on with the wife with hormones and emotions and use that information to help his campaign, he is being smart.

Don't get so caught up in being right or wrong that the goal of warming up the wife is utterly disregarded in favor of winning some battle or argument. Win the battle and lose the war.

Some roadblocks can be worked around. They can have a family bed and a nookie bed. They can put a mattress on the floor for the kicker.

LW can start having conversations with his wife about other topics. Talk about the landscaping, the kid in school's new teacher, Talk about pie-in-the sky if money were no object travel dreams. The point is get talking. Get her talking and it will be worlds easier to introduce more challenging topics.

LW can toss in a "I really like having sweetie in the bed with us, but I had such a hard time getting any sleep it was affecting my productivity at work. I wonder if there is a better solution. What do you think?"

At the same time he can work on the 6 year old. He can totally bribe her. It works. Princess slumber party, coming up. Drop little hints about her being a big girl. And big girls pass some threshold when they sleep in their own bed. Make it good. It is a prize to be earned, not a banishment from a haven.

Keep in mind the ultimate goals. Keep it as positive as possible.

Yes, he and wife need to have some frank conversation. If he can shape that encounter by laying some groundwork in advance..? Smart. Try not to put the wife into the enemy camp. They are supposed to be a team so he should totally behave as though they are a team. Even if wifey isn't on board yet.

I would like to point out we have no idea when the six year old rejoined the bed which I think is rather important.

YES, flydye. That's bothered me from the beginning, that LW is unclear on whether this has gone on from the start and he's let it continue for six years or if it's a more recent development. Because at some point they did conceive the second child, which I've heard takes some gymnastics with a five-year-old in the bed. He also says the daughter should "go to her own bed now," but is that a metaphorical bed, or is it a bed she's slept in at some point before coming back to the big one? He talks as if the wife is co-sleeping now rather than before. I'm still astounded by LW's lack of information here.

LauraGr Says:

“He wants to get wife warmed up and feeling loving. He wants a reduction in foot/face contact and an increase of sleep in the bed. Fair enough?”

This I completely agree with. I also agree that if he wants to achieve these objectives he shouldn’t just storm in ranting and raving about how “right” he is. It isn’t productive to be any more aggressive in the conversation than is absolutely necessary to get himself heard.

What I do not agree with is the perspective that he has a better chance of achieving his goals through a method that includes appeasement.

He has already tried the passive appeasement strategy by passively leaving the bed and sleeping on his own, that is what seems to have gotten him in this mess to begin with. If appeasement was going to help him achieve his goals he would be closer to them at this point instead of further away.

He has to be ready to stand his ground, be direct, and refuse to be ignored. He’s got to be an advertiser who is making the hard sell because clearly the soft sell method isn’t being effective.

If you look back at what I’ve said, all I have been arguing against are strategies that include appeasement as part of the core strategy. In this particular case I do not think appeasement is going to get him anywhere. In other situations appeasement can be a valid and effective approach.

Yes he needs to understand where his wife is coming from, yes he needs to approach the situation with tact, but he doesn’t have to accept her refusal to discuss this issue. In fact he should be ready to be adamant that this issue is important enough to him that she has no business shutting down conversation entirely.

I just wanted to say, as a child whose grandmother (she raised me) sat with her every night and then "co-slept" after my grandpa died until her death when I was ten (all of this with the lights on until I was asleep)... their relationship is not going to be the only thing hurt.

I adored my grandma, I loved sleeping with her, staying up late reading together. It was amazing and I've never known another person like her. At the same time, I'm 23 now and STILL cannot sleep alone in the dark. I was put on anti-anxiety medication for night terrors until I was 15, I didn't stay the full night with a friend until I was 13. I can't watch scary movies without having full-on panic attacks at bed time. Every night used to be a race to fall asleep before everyone else so I wouldn't have to be alone. It's a little pathetic, really. Thankfully, I'm finally starting to force myself to get over it. Now I just need a night light. :-)

I don't know that this is all related to it, but I can't imagine that never having spent a night on my own, excluding the weekends spent at my mom's house trying to force myself asleep before the tv sleep timer went off, and then suddenly losing her and being expected to just move into my own room all of a sudden? It was hard, and terrifying. One of those Nanny-911 shows described it as a confidence thing. You never learn to get past the "monster in the closet" thing, because you never have to face it. Or something like that.

Nikky,

Sorry, but your story about sleeping together sounds awful! It seems that maybe the kindest thing the father could do is put his foot down!

Now, the plural of anecdote is not data, but still...so too the 'family bed' people.

[i]Sex is fun. Sex is nice. Sex is not essential. Five Finger Fanny can deliver whatever your spouse does not in the orgasm department.

Societal pressure on a man that is impotent must be crushing. Especially since y'all have decided that a spouses essential worth is tied up in delivering sex on demand.[/i]

Granted that this may be true for you, it's not true for everyone and probably not true for most. "Sex on demand" was not mentioned and is not contemplated; sex on a reasonably regular basis according to ability is what matters. If my wife loses the ability to have sex with me, I probably won't like that any better than having her cut me off intentionally, [i]but[/i] the enormous difference between the two is that if she loses the ability to have sex with me, but is still in love with me, then the two of us are going through something awful together, and yes, I'll man up and help her through it.
That is the opposite of a situation where she withdraws herself from me because her libido has decreased for whatever reason; we're not suffering through that together, I'm suffering and I'm doing it at her hand.

As for the attitude that sex is unimportant and that masturbation can take place of sex with my wife, how can that be? Masturbation is far easier, quicker, simpler and cheaper than sex with another person, no matter how much you love her; if masturbation were just as good or just as important, why would I care about sex at all?

From my point of view, if masturbation were just as good as sex with my wife--if, in other words, sex with my wife was simply a way to relax and release some sexual tension and nothing more--then I wouldn't consider myself to be in love with her. I take you at your word that it doesn't work that way for you, but keep an open mind when other people say that sex is important in their marriages; they might be telling the truth.

I've explained it to my wife this way before: I love all kinds of people. There are several people in my life, aside from her, for whom I would show the highest measure of love. That means that I would sacrifice my life to save theirs. That includes the kids, and it also includes people like my mother and father, my sister, my nieces. I've had roommates who were nearly my best friends, too, although I probably wouldn't have stopped a bullet for either of them (no offense if you're reading this, Paul, you're a nice guy and all.) What sets my love for her apart in my mind (and I know that doesn't mean it would even make sense to everyone else, but it's true in my case) is not necessarily that it's more love, but that it's a different love. It's not the same kind of love that I feel for my son or my sister or my mother, even though I love them, and it's not the kind of companionship I felt with my roommates, even though we live together and get along and have a good friendly partnership. I'm sexually mated to her. I desire her and want her to desire me; when I kiss her, there's almost always some hint of my sexual desire in there whether I'm acting on it at that moment or not.

A few years ago, when she was working hard at limiting us to lousy sex once a month, up from twice a year, I was miserable (and miserable to be around, too, it must be admitted) even though the partnership still existed and she never stopped saying she loved me. She was looking at sex the way it was written about above; it wasn't important, compared to our friendship and our partnership and how well we were raising the kids.

Of course, once we started working on the sex issue, we began to realize that we hadn't been doing the job we thought we had on the partnership, the friendship, or the child-raising, either. I haven't done everything right, and I've certainly had to do my fair share of changing and examining my own actions, but if I had tried to spend another five years settling down to my asexual marriage with the consoling thought that sex is not important, I'd be divorced by now. I didn't and I'm in a much happier marriage today. More than that, I have a wife who is working with me and talking to me about how to move forward and make things even better.

And Letter Writer, if you read any of these comments and you made it this far, I repeat what others have said: Do NOT accept the shot-from-the-hip advice that you have to get a divorce because your wife is doing something that hurts you and she "won't talk about it." You might end up there in the end, but there's no way anyone who only read a few lines of your side of the relationship in print can tell you that it's time for divorce.

sensazionale degli ultimi anni in Italia