O, Goddess of Dating Advice!

Could you stop meddling into affairs you have not idea about (like having children)?

"To be an idiot" about something and "having no idea about" that something are quite different from each other.

Your equating the two tips the scale towards "the idiot" part. My condolences.

You ask about "details." It is like someone who never had an orgasm tries to lecture others who had it on how to have sex and then, being send off, is asking "where am I mistaken, give me details?"

Now, having a child affects one's psyche in ways more profound than having an orgasm. Hope it helps.

Yo, Mere Moron,

What, exactly, did Amy get wrong about 'having children'?

Was it the part where children raised by both parents tend (on average) to be better adjusted than those who aren't?

Or was it that part where, if a couple decides (or just happens) to have children, that then, at that point, the welfare of those children should become more important than whatever it is that one or the other of the parents 'wants' to do?

You sound an awful lot like all too many people who seem to feel that children are merely an accessory, some kind of flexible lifestyle choice that can be dismissed or discarded when the effort to do right by them becomes too much to bear.

If you are that kind of person, you are *exactly* the poster child of everything that is wrong with the world at this time.

And now, I fully expect you to respond with some disjointed diatribe about your own, particular, preternatural parenting skills.

The thing is, if you really are such a magnificent parent, you would have to agree with the majority of Amy's points about children and the responsibilities of the parents.

Otherwise, you're just an idiot.

Amy, have some class, would you?
Stop creating funny avatars to praise yourself.

Mere Moron,

Is that the best you can do?

Must make 'masturbation night in the outhouse' a real challenge. You probably can't even find your own 'item'.

If I'm an avatar for Amy, she must have one hell of an imagination, conjuring up an old fat guy in the middle of the country, and for no other reason than to make you feel special.

But, since someone like you probably needs all the help you can get to feel 'special', maybe that idea works for you.

I've always wondered what the doctors see during a colonoscopy. And, now, due to the wonders of the internet, I've found someone with direct and personal experience of the inside of their own ass.

Mere Mortal,

I've raised three children and Amy isn't making any point that is inaccurate. Of course, someone that possesses the power of logic knows that her maternal status or my paternal status has absolutely nothing to do with the correctness of her argument.

I, too, would like to hear which part of her argument regarding children, from your perspective, she got wrong. Please.

Who forgot to send me the memo regarding not talking about things we have no direct personal experience with? Glad I found out. Effective immediately, I'll stop talking about, well, most everything. Sorry to have bothered you all with my unfounded-in-experience opinions and analyses.

Honestly, is this the THREAD THAT WOULDN'T DIE?

Who forgot to send me the memo regarding not talking about things we have no direct personal experience with? Glad I found out. Effective immediately, I'll stop talking about, well, most everything. Sorry to have bothered you all with my unfounded-in-experience opinions and analyses.

So men can't talk about women and women can't talk about men? Hmm. It's going to be a ghost town around here.

That said, Mere is not the first person to bring this up. When I hear 'You have no idea what a nursing mother goes through' in all of it's various permutations and from the same mentioned thread, isn't that a similar appeal to authority?

But to the crux of the letter. 'Yes, but' LW.

'Appreciation' waxes and wanes.* I know I've been undervalued at time by my SO (or it seemed to me at the time), and I KNOW I've reciprocated.

So sometimes you put up with stuff for a bit. (Six years? Um, no) I would gladly send the guy from the original thread a metaphorical 2x4 to smack some sense into her which I think is desperately needed.

Your 'solution' is essentially a call for the wife to pull out that pen...and sign a divorce decree. Now that might work for THIS situation but others? I'm not convinced.

*Damn it! Now I'm agreeing with Laura Gr. I still think the wife is wrong and he should be setting up for plan B, but it isn't totally hopeless.

Sounds like Amy nailed it. Not just with the column, but with "Mere Mortal." "Mortal's" in a snit because Amy gave advice that Mortal didn't agree with, and suggested that Amy not offer advice about something she has no direct experience with.

Amy, quite reasonably, requests that Mortal point out what it was that Amy got wrong. Instead of doing so, Mortal fires back with half-witted insults. It leads me to believe that Mortal is, in fact, a divorcee with kids who decided to put herself before her kids and is having a time of her life between her times with custody, and doesn't take kindly to the suggestion that someone should endure a less than pristine marriage for the sake of the kids.

> Please feel free to detail what, exactly, I got
> wrong here

I generally agree with what you said, but I think the effect of divorce on children is far more nuanced than you state.

You quote Dr. Paul Amato. In that same study, Dr. Amato states that some children actually benefit from divorce, and that for many other children the negative effects are something they recover from.

A lot of the research also shows that many of the problems experienced by children of divorce actually start in the period prior to divorce when they are negatively effected by their parents' souring relationship. So, it's not the divorce itself that causes the issues the children face.

Other research shows that economic problems resulting from divorce are the cause of many problems experienced by children of divorce.

Research shows that the majority of children of divorce fall within the normal range of adjustment on standardized measures.

So, I'd say the decision to divorce is a lot more complex than keep the family together at all costs if possible. You need to look at the parents' economic situation, parenting styles, level of conflict, age of children, and a myriad of other factors in determining whether divorce will have a long term negative impact on the children.

Of course there is something to be said for having experienced something in giving out advice about it but that certainly doesn't make you an expert. I would take Amy's advice over most parents' advice concerning child rearing because of her intelligence, common sense, and her research. She never claimed to know how it feels to have children.

I guess I had no right telling my own children not to put their hands on the stove burners. Who was I to say what damage could be done having never seared my own hand?

LW's priorities are a bit skewed, methinks.

Anyone that believes that life is all up and no down is a fool. Of course, the world is full of them so ... *shrug*

If I were the original LW, I would be concerned about the effect on the six year old sleeping in the parents bed. At what age is the mother finally going to have the child sleep by him/herself. I would think it would be very hard to get the child comfortable sleeping alone after 6 or 8 or 10 years sleeping with the parents.

I agree that parents need to try to keep the marriage together and put their children's needs first, but what if the LW tries to talk/bargain with his wife and/or tries to get his wife to go for counseling and she either refuses to talk or flat out tells him that she is done with having sex.

Amy wrote:

Of course, on a pure fairness level, you don't get to be married to somebody and be all "I'm retiring from sexual activity" -- not unless you answer "That's nice, dear" to your spouse's "I'm just running over to borrow a cup of sex from the lady next door."

I agree with that, but, in reality, a woman can say, "I'm retiring from sexual activity" and there is nothing the guy can do about it.

Ooh! Me next! Can I be a narcissistic self-praising avatar for Amy too?

Ooh! Me next! Can I be a narcissistic self-praising avatar for Amy too?

You mean you aren't?

I agree with that, but, in reality, a woman can say, "I'm retiring from sexual activity" and there is nothing the guy can do about it.

Yes, the good old 'women's sexuality is complicated' card. A perfect excuse as to why she doesn't want to put out for ALL occasions.

Technically, this is 'unfair' but if he (sniff) just did XY or Z...

No I'm not stereotyping all women this way. But it IS accessible to any woman who wants to misuse it in this manner.

As a child of divorced parents I can say that yes a divorce DOES impact the children. However becuase of their negativity towards each other I would have actually preffered they seperate sooner. Thats not to say I don't agree with Amys advice- I fully believe if you choose to bring a child into this world and raise it then your needs come second to those of your child! But which is worse? Living in a home with 2 parents who loathe each other, or having 2 people who live seperatly but do the right thing and raise the child amicably?

And Mere Mortal- I repeat MY advice to you from a previous thread- get some therapy!!

Lots o' people feeding the trolls today.

1. Don't argue with an idiot; people watching may not be able to tell the difference.
2. Mud wrestling with pigs - Don't do it, because you never win, and eventually you realize the pig enjoys it.

3. Don't argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.

If your spouse isn't putting out enough, you have the right to go elsewhere, paid or not. End of story. In fact, you have the right to wander occasionally anyway. It is a marriage, not a prison.

But which is worse? Living in a home with 2 parents who loathe each other, or having 2 people who live seperatly but do the right thing and raise the child amicably?

It is absolutely unacceptable to me that two fully functioning adults with the ability to raise children cannot keep to themselves that they "loath" each other, barring circumstances of clear abuse or similar. Ridiculous. There's no reason, other than pure selfishness, that parents can't be polite to each other, once they've been able to be nice to each other long enough to create children.

(I'm in my early 30s, and grew up with and still know a lot of people from divorce households. It is abundantly clear to me that they still hold scars from it, and it reflects in their current relationships. My parents fought a bit for a while, and for a while I thought that I wished that they would get divorced, but I really am thankful every day that they didn't put me and my siblings, all of us doing well as adults, through that hell.)

I don't believe that Amy said at any point that they shouldn't divorce. She said that before they reached that point, they needed to make absolutely sure, for both their mental health, and the children, that there was no way they could work around this. She was trying to give them suggestions that would improve their lives. I'm not sure him having extramarital sex would do anything to alienate these two people even further.

It's the cheaters' excuse really. 'I wasn't getting what I wanted, so I went elsewhere...'

It's creepy to me that a mother would allow her six year old child to sleep in the marital bed to refuse her husband sex. I'm concerned that the rest of the world doesn't see it as creepy, but if a father did the exact same thing, they would be calling him a pervert. They'd be putting his name on a registry, and taking away his parental rights. Yet, no one is doing this to her. She's damaging that child, and no one is calling it the abuse it really is.

I wrote recently about Dr. Rosemary Basson's breakthrough work on female sexual desire -- how women in long-term relationships sometimes have to start fooling around for desire to come.

Likely what really is happening is that these women just need a "real man" and not the sensitive new age guy that their husbands have turned into. They should see Athol Kay's or Heartiste's blog before scheduling an affair.

If you're going down the road of 'open marriage' to save your marriage, then I think it's already over - and if isn't, will be once you're getting your affection somewhere else. What are you going to do, come home from visiting the hooker and then talk about the weather? What's the point.

"It's creepy to me that a mother would allow her six year old child to sleep in the marital bed to refuse her husband sex. I'm concerned that the rest of the world doesn't see it as creepy [...] She's damaging that child, and no one is calling it the abuse it really is."

I'm glad someone besides me got that.

I'm not sure I would call it 'abuse' or 'creepy', though it will probably screw up this kid. It seems to me to send the message to the 6-year old that he is the head of the household, or at the very least, 'above' the dad in ranking, as the 6-year old is given the sleeping position of the head of the household and the dad's needs are relegated below the 6yo's needs, to the lowest possible position, he must just find whatever spot he can to sleep, even if that's a couch. It's seriously twisted. I suspect that's exactly the message the wife is sending.

" ...She's damaging that child, and no one is calling it the abuse it really is.'

I'm glad someone besides me got that."

My kids slept in a family bed situation for quite a while longer than is considered the norm. Though by six years old, they were certainly only semi-infrequent guests (bad dreams, storms, normal shit.) I think we graduated each of them to their own beds at about two and a half or three or so. I forget.

Many family members thought this was just appalling and "damaging to the child". It's totally not.

It's certainly not anything abusive. That's a pretty weird accusation. Although six years old is certainly the extreme, there isn't anything abusive to the child about it. In this strange case, she's using the child as a barrier against her husband's sexual advances. That's husband abuse for sure, but not child abuse.

In my case, it never got in the way of almost daily sex. There are other rooms in the house and different times of the day to take care of things.

Plus, before they start sprouting sharp teeth, the family bed thing is really ideal for breast feeding and particularly ideal for a good night's sleep for all involved.

My in-laws used to complain that we might roll over on them. That's total nonsense. Anybody with any parental instinct at all is constantly mindful of where their children are from even the deepest sleep. Whether they're in the same bed or the next room, you're always at least subconsciously mindful of them.

"...It seems to me to send the message to the 6-year old that he is the head of the household, or at the very least, 'above' the dad in ranking..."

That's a damned good point, Lobster. It describes the LW's situation well, but I don't think it applies to most family bed situations.

whistleDick, given this isnt really a familly bed situation but a use the kids as a sex sheild and claim publically it is a familly bed situation, I think it is a little absive twords the child as well.

The mother is induging a fairly minor 'want' of the child over what the child really needs.

And she is doing it to avoid intamcy and sex with her husband, not to enjoy intamacy with her kids

Psychology is not really "scientific" and studies are easily biased.

For example - my parents are divorced. Studies show I would have "done better" if they had stayed together. Done better how exactly? I went to college. I have a 6 figure salary. I don't want kids. I travel, have good friends. I am not perfect...but nobody is. So tell me - how much better off would I be if they had stayed together?

The honest answer is...no better and probably no worse. Sure I may have had some benefits of parents in the same house. But I also would have had some of the drawbacks of having parents that could barely stand the sight of each other. Kids pick up on this crap...they KNOW their parents can't stand each other. You can't fake a happy family...

If you want to imagine what it's like to be in a relationship "just for the kids" you have to imagine yourself not with your current spouse (who you love and are happy with)...imagine yourself with your ex-boyfriend. Forever. Living under the same roof...every...day. Some of that dysfunction will get on your kids...

"Could you stop meddling into affairs you have not idea about (like having children)?"

Amy, you really need to STOP cold calling people and asking to tell you their problems. If you didn't cold them, how dare you give advice to people who ask your opinion.

I suspect the LW is a reader of Dan Savage's - for anyone unfamiliar with his Savage Love column, Dan advocates spouses getting permission to get their jollies elsewhere if 1) they aren't getting any at home for whatever reason (such as, one spouse is seriously ill and is in no condition to have sex for a prolonged period of time), and 2) it's necessary to preserve the unsexed spouse's sanity and therefore the marriage. But he also suggests that, if such permission is obtained, it be kept discreet (i.e. the kids shouldn't find out), and that the spouse be upfront and honest with booty calls that it will be a booty call situation only - no romancing, no expectations, just sex.

I always wonder how often this tactic is successful, considering he seems to often get letters from people who followed his rules and then say things like "but now I'm in love with TWO people! What should I do?"

Sex isn't just sex.

'Could you stop meddling into affairs you have not idea about (like having children)?'

I can imagine someone like Mere Mortal hitting himself/herself with a hammer, jamming their fingers in a car door,and sticking their fingers in sockets so they have personal experience enough to raise kids. Don't forget to jump off the roof!

Common sense ain't all that common anymore...

I agree with Jina. I am a constant reader of Dan Savage's column as well as Amy's. Mere Mortal is parroting Savage's themes without explaining the logic behind them. It's unfair to attack Amy, who should be applauded for her genuine empathy, and to the same degree odious of 'Mere' to pretend to feel anything close to it. Good call Jina.

I've been following a number of other men's forums, and the issue of sexless marriage is a painful recurring theme.
I witnessed a member at Answerology struggle to understand how his lovely talented wife of 23 years (whom he adored and treated like a queen) could make him endure such a life.
I offered a few tips, and along the way he discovered David Deangelo's site, plus some other sources.
It all came down to the Nice Guy Syndrome.
Once he learned to make a few adjustments, his wife began to respond immediately.
He was offered a chance to have an affair, knowing he could ruin his marriage and career both.
He was so desperate, he took the bait.
Incredibly, his wife suddenly took a new interest in him, that he hadn't seen in years!
It all crashed in the end, though-- marriage and career as well.

Rome is just super! One of the most wonderful places I have ever visited.

I suspect Mere Mortal is a bot. He doesn't seem to pass a Turing test.

Marriage is a lot more than sex, but sex "does" add a lot of joy to it.

Maybe instead of "compromising" with your spouse about how often you'll come together- you should find out why they aren't 'in the mood'.

When my husband calls me from work and says: "Are we gonna "do anything" tonight?", my first response is NO. When he tells/shows me how much he wants and enjoys being with me, I'm all over it.

Honestly, if the relationship is healthy, the sex will follow. People should focus more on building healthy relationships, and setting an example of how marriage should be in front of their children.

This was my first experience reading Amy's advice column and I've enjoyed it very much.

And BTW, Amy, as a wife and mom who let both kids sleep in the bed with us, I think your advice is spot on. In fact, the only thing I'd add, is that no kids should be in the parents' bed unless BOTH parents agree, in an actual conversation, that co-sleeping is the way to go and that's what they're both choosing to do.

Also, sex can happen anywhere, not just the marriage bed. Why not put the kids down and go into another room for your private time? Couches work too, rugs... Or, perhaps the LW treats the mother of his children like garbage? In which case, no place on Earth is going to work for the sex, until they work out the issue underlying the symptom of no sex.

Mere Mortal, I notice I never saw your response to Amy's question about what she said that was incorrect. Gee, I wonder why! (not really) She didn't say anything incorrect.

Thank you, all, for such a fantastic way to wake myself from Friday night's slumber.

If women had to work this hard for a hug, would we be crying out emotional abuse?

Reminds me of this Louis CK clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fmban3Fio14&feature=player_embedded

Really, though, so what if Amy doesn't have kids? Sometimes I ask for advice from people who haven't had the same life experiences I've had because they'll give a fresh perspective. I've gotten some of the best relationship advice from people who have NEVER been in long-term relationships.

One more reason that marriage is screwed up. I'd never get married again. Too many people are trapped in a marriage because "the best interests of the chidrenz" are holding them hostage to a bad situation.

If a woman cheats, we minimize it and put the blame on her husband - he's doing something wrong, or it's a laugh that his sexual function is impaired, or he's a loser for not pleasing his spouse. If he cheats, he's a dog who deserves the worst treatment and disdain we can muster, if not public castration.

I'm sure that there's many sexless couples that could get past it with a little guidance on how to court each other and spark some interest, but that's not going to work when one person either refuses out right, or entered the marriage under false pretense - pretended attraction and interest until children made it financially and emotionally unteneable to separate from someone who refuses to be a fully involved partner.

Until family laws change to make the results the same for both partners, I would suggest any man look askance at getting married or becoming a father.

"psychology is not really "scientific" and studies are easily biased.

For example - my parents are divorced. Studies show I would have "done better" if they had stayed together. Done better how exactly?"

K, studies don't really work that way, I'm afraid you've misunderstood (this is a common mistake). If a study shows that, say, children of divorced kids do worse (at school, or jobs, or whatever) - that does not actually mean that 100% of children of divorced kids do worse. A study might show that, say, 70% of such children do worse. That would allow them to say that, in general, children do worse. And they would be both correct and 'scientific'. But 70% would still mean a huge 30% of children did about the same or better, and you would just be in that 30%. It isn't surprising or unusual for that to happen, in fact it *must* happen in every such study that there are people who fall within the minority group. This doesn't mean the study is wrong. It's because different individual cases differ, and the people involved differ. For example, one child might have had good home support from grandma and thus turned OK. Another might have had parents who divorced very amicably. Etc. (I've simplified slightly but you get the idea.)

"If your spouse isn't putting out enough, you have the right to go elsewhere, paid or not. End of story."

I once said, "What BOTU's comments mean to me is that he has never valued anyone else. No one. Pity him, for no matter what he does, he is truly and forever alone."

Correct, again.

This is a subject familiar to me. I think Amy's advice is spot on. In a partnership between two mature adults, negotiations and compromise about sex should be a no-brainer.

In my case, things were somewhat more complex. My wife was a great advocate of midwifery, breast-feeding, co-sleeping, "attachment parenting" etc. I went along with it when the kids were actually nursing... but fast forward a bit and there's still a six year old in our bed, who weaned eons ago.

Our sexual frequency was pretty low, yet we could still have magnificent, if infrequent, sex. What happened next is that she fell in love with another woman. It turns out that the years of being tired, overwhelmed, the co-sleeping et al were largely avoidance mechanisms. The co-sleeping advocacy, in other words, was a way of avoiding intimacy. For years I attributed our lack of sex to these quite legitimate outside factors... I had no idea how simple it was.

The situation with the other woman fell apart quickly, we nearly divorced over it, but since reconciling, things have never been great.

Sexual desire is complex. In my wife's case, she isn't an absolute lesbian, but her attraction to men pales before her attraction to women. She can have great sex with me occassionally still, but the moon and stars must be in exactly the right alignment. It requires some serious magic on my part, which I'm happy to provide, but it's a lot of work for little pay-off. By little pay-off, I mean that it's patently obvious that she isn't really into me most of the time. Romance doesn't work, nor do weekends away. She utterly can't navigate a date night. What does work is subtle and complicated. Essentially if I charm her about the time she ovulates, the chances are good.

I'm still with her because we have three kids. We're great co-parents, we get along great on a non-sexual level, and divorce would be traumatic and difficult at the moment.

On the other hand, were there no kids involved, I would be long gone.

The point though, is that perhaps co-sleeping may be indicative of larger issues. If someone is avoiding intimacy, something is clearly wrong.

I used to enjoy reading the comments on Amy's site.

Now I realize why 50% of all marriages end in divorce.

Tonight I'm going to make sure my husband and I have a good talk about making sure all of our needs are met.

You are a wise woman, lori m. At least in this regard.

Dervish,

The age you are looking for is about 16.

Just saying.

To divorce, you mean, flydye? I doubt we'll last that long (my youngest is six)! I do want them to be just a bit more independent though, and I want to slowly settle our affairs so that we're not hurting ourselves financially. We're reasonably civil, even comfortable (sort of), so there's no sense being reckless.

Well, I'd give them till 12 if at all humanly possible. (yes, it's humanly possible) I know it's long but this isn't about you.

Yep, 12 is about what I'm shooting for... in middle school, independent or easily directed in most tasks, etc. They're just little folks now, and we actually work pretty well together for the intense sort of parenting they need now. They'll need it then too, but it's a different game when they're older.

I'm only 20% of this equation (and so is she)... I totally get that!

Good for you and be strong!