My husband and I text and email each other short messages during the day. Sometimes the messages are romantic, like affectionate or dirty. But mostly they're just things we think the other might find particularly interesting or funny or that builds on one of our many inside jokes. Occasionally we bait each other with things we know the other might get riled about. Either links from the internet, or describing something that just happened or that someone else said. Sometimes the other person will only respond with a brief "ha" or not at all, sometimes we banter back and forth. All in all, it makes me feel like we're naughty co-conspirators, even when we're apart. Even though most of the content is not really romantic, the result ends up being increased romance. If that makes sense.

"In the beginning, I did romantic stuff all the time."

That was your first mistake, Turbo. "Romantic things" are rarely truly romantic. Amy is right. It's the little stuff that proves that you're actually thinking of her rather than roses and shit like that.

Occasionally, you'll come across a woman who doesn't understand that. They call that, "high maintenance".

I guess I'm subconsciously reacting to the fact

Put down the under-researched/over-hyped self-help book and step away slowly. Buzzwords aren't the answer, and there's no need to diagnose yourself with a pathology.

Listen to lurker: "naughty co-conspirators" is a good description of the kind of intimacy women tend to mean when they say they want their husbands to be romantic. It's about showing you're aware of things that make her happy, not things that women are supposed to want because they've been deemed "romantic." And whistleDick is right about the kind of women who want the latter: they're about status, not real intimacy. Plus, those kinds of gifts and gestures don't actually take much thought at all. Take Amy's advice and figure out what would show your wife you care on a small scale to give steady reminders that you value her and what she cares about.

And if you want to recapture a bit of the thrill of the chase, it couldn't hurt to pull out a little of the old Clive Bixby. Conceptually, I mean, since I'm assuming you don't want your Julianna getting stuck nearly naked on an escalator.

Even something like putting away the dishes works. I love it when I get up in the morning to see that BF has put away the dishes from last night's dinner. Or when he takes the laundry out of the dryer for me. Or when he hears me in the driveway when I get home from the store and comes out to help me bring in the groceries. Or when we're watching TV and he goes into the kitchen and comes back with a beer for himself and a glass of wine for me, without me even asking. That kinda thing could even lead to a little canoodling, and next thing ya know, we're in bed! It's not rocket science.

What Flynne said. Also, just expressing appreciation goes a long way. Every day, my BF and I just try to thank each other for something. Thank you for buying milk and OJ. Thank you for throwing in a load of laundry. Thank you for the sweet text, it really made my day. People are more likely to do nice things when they know someone notices and acknowledges it.

Also, we make each other mix cds every so often and give them funny names, like the "thanks for putting up with me mix" or the "Rush hour sucks mix" or the "songs from the year we met mix."

it's true that LW can do all these things; however, she might stay that way (= wanting him to be who he was before they got married). which would be too bad, b/c she's got a spouse here who cares enough to write to Amy and ask for help with this.

The wife should start withdrawing, and dating other men. Then we'll see how he really feels about the "thrill of the chase".

LW, you need to understand you haven't necessarily nabbed her forever. Thinking so would be a mistake.

Women respond to being significant to their partner. A healthy marriage/partnerhsip is one in which both parties make an effort to consistently demonstrate how important the other person is to each of them. (Apologies for the poor grammar.)

Treat your marriage, and your partner, with the respect they both deserve. You will be very glad you did.

I am noticing and interesting similarity in advice given around here in reaction to two common tropes in life.

First trope: a married man writes in bemoaning a lack of sex. The response from too many people: you, sir, need to work harder at awakening her lust! Are you doing enough, are you working hard to give her optimal conditions for her libido?! If she is not interested in sex, that is likely your failing. Let's focus on you, sir, not the person with the relatively low libido.

Second trope: a man writes in, saying his wife is complaining about a lack of "romance." The response from too many of the same people here: you, sir, need to work hard at giving her romance! Are you doing enough, are you working hard to give her romance?! If she is feeling like she needs more, that is likely your failing. Let's focuse on you, sir, not the person who would like more romance.

Notice how in both those responses, the man is apparently at fault for not working hard enough or for otherwise being the root cause for the woman's state of being.

Put another way, note that in each response to the male, her RELATIVE lack of interest (as against his) in sex is seen as his problem to address, and his RELATIVE lack of interest in romance (as against her) is, again, ... his problem to address.

So given this apparent disparity of treatment, I ask: where is the Greek Chorus of Gender Equality now, decrying in this case how she is probably unreasonable expecting him to just give in to her bestial demands for romance?! After he puts in a hard day's work, does chores around the house, and cares for the kids, well, it is simply one more task for him to suddenly get all Fabio for her, when all he really wants is a good night's sleep. (Sound familiar? It is what certain people say to guys who want some action.) She should spend more time taking tasks off his full plate, spend more time being attentive to him, and likely then he will suddenly experience a reawakening of his romantic self. She should start by cutting the grass more, giving him backrubs (without expecting romance every time in exchange), drawing him a rose-petal bath, etc.

Yup, in short, a little choreplay and other such stuff will surely--surely--awaken the Fabio within him. What, you doubt that? You mean that the key to unlocking behavior in HIM is not found in HER scurrying attempts to somehow kindle romance in him?

Huh. Who would have thought that?

well written Spartee

Notice how in both those responses, the man is apparently at fault for not working hard enough or for otherwise being the root cause for the woman's state of being.

I can't speak for everyone here, but I proceed on a letter-by-letter basis, and this LW wrote in asking how to show his wife he still cares and admits that he doesn't do romantic stuff much anymore (whatever that romantic stuff may be). I absolutely think it's up to both parties involved to make with the romance and it absolutely shouldn't fall on the husband alone to improve their relationship. But he wrote in asking for advice and didn't throw in anything about how he tries and tries but his wife just isn't happy. This guy wants help, so what is Amy (and the rest of us) to do? Tell him to tell his wife that he isn't the problem and he isn't going to do anything?

It's also worth noting that both whistleDick and I point out that if he does take Amy's advice and do some little things to show he cares and his wife still isn't happy, then she may just be unreasonably demanding and concerned with status gifts.

No one is saying that it is his fault for everything, but he is saying there is something he knows his wife wants, and he is just not feeling it lately. So yeah, to make his wife happy and his marriage fulfilling then he should respond to her requests. She isnt asking for anything ridiculous. Also, if there is nothing wrong medically a woman should go along with her husband (within reason as with all things) if he wants more sex! Its all about keeping your spouse happy, and who doesnt want their other to be happy? And he HASNT nabbed her forever, he could still lose her if he isnt careful, or if she decides to leave for what ever reason. So why not go out of your way for your other?

@Spartee,

I agree with you 100%. Everything you've written struck a chord and I'm fist pumping.

The only caveat I can apply here is this: HE is writing and asking what HE can do. So going to the wife and challenging her goes to what SHE should do.

Frankly, if she wants romance, she should offer him lots of unsolicited and unreciprocated sex. (That tends to be my answer for a lot of ills, so take it with a grain of salt)

"Put another way, note that in each response to the male, her RELATIVE lack of interest (as against his) in sex is seen as his problem to address, and his RELATIVE lack of interest in romance (as against her) is, again, ... his problem to address."

Well, I agree with Flydye, in that he is the one who wrote in, so he is the only one whose behavior we can actaully address.

Not long ago, when a woman wrote in that her partner no longer found her sexually attractive because she'd put on a few pounds, a lot of us told her she should lose weight.

So, I don't see us as necessarily sexist here, but, being in the tourist trade, I can tell you that we have a saying: "If Mama 'aint happy, then nobody's happy"...meaning if you've got to try to appease one person in the family, it better be her because, if not, she'll take the whole ship down with her.

Is it fair? No. Practical? Yes.

So, I don't see us as necessarily sexist here,

Rule No. 1 of commenting here seems to be that we're all sexist, all the time, no matter what we write. If we support the woman, then we hate men. If we support the man, then we hate women. Then we put women on one side of the room and men on the other and throw spitballs at each other.

Put another way, note that in each response to the male, her RELATIVE lack of interest (as against his) in sex is seen as his problem to address, and his RELATIVE lack of interest in romance (as against her) is, again, ... his problem to address.

If course it's his problem to address. He's the one who wrote in asking for advice on how to address the problem.

Frankly, if she wants romance, she should offer him lots of unsolicited and unreciprocated sex.

Unreciprocated? You mean she should have sex with other people?

The main reason in the first case we said he should work harder is that there were KIDS involved. Without the kids most of us green lighted him walking off into the sunset. Even(or especially) if your partner is a nasty selfish partner you really do need to wait till the kids are grown. Work hard to keep him/her happy till that kids are off in college then kick their ass to the curb. One of my main distastes towards stay at home parents is that you can't kick there ass to the proverbial curve when the kid is grown.

The letter writer should simply read his first two sentences over and over till it dawns on him. You used to do X, wife is complaining about lack of X. Logic dictates do X. The caveat being her definition of X. If she's looking for a back-rub and the occasional flowers/dinner then your being a bitch for not doing it. If she's looking for Chritian Loubaton shoes and one 1 carat diamond earrings run like hell. Or smack yourself repeatedly for having kids with such a viper.

Doing little things (unless you are married to a vampiric shrew) pays off in the long run. In exchange for doing that romantic stuff I'm getting a Barrett 50 cal for deer hunting in January. The crown jewel of many awesome toys I get for doing romantic stuff. While I do it cause I enjoy it the reciprocity is awesome.

A newlywed woman I used to work with was ready for divorce because her husband stop doing things for her. After she got fed up, he tried to be more romantic, but she was not going to be forgiving. I overheard her once say into her cellphone, "You just called to say you live me??? You're dumb!" And she hung up.

"Dawn," I said. "That was cold!"

"Well, he should have thought to do that before! Guys just think they can do whatever they need to get with us. And then when they get with us, they think they can just stop!"

"So, you expect your husband to be more sensitive and caring?" I asked. "Is that it?"

"Yeah."

"Dawn, the reason you don't meet guys like that is because guys like that already have boyfriends."

That got a laugh. "It's true!" she said.

It's best not to do anything in the incipient stages of the relationship that you don't intend to keep up.

Spartee, in this case the LW said he's reacting to having nabbed her forever. If that's the truth, he needs to change his perspective.

Unreciprocated [sex]?

Blowjobs. Duh.

Speaking of blowjobs, anyone else see last nights south park?

Speaking of blowjobs,

Every sentence should start with that. Just because.

"Spartee, in this case the LW said he's reacting to having nabbed her forever. If that's the truth, he needs to change his perspective."

Yeah, the guy needs to quit guilt-tripping. Courtship stages are different from long term relationships. Accept it, dude.

For her part, my guess is he now sees her comfy jammies, which would never have been shown during stages when he was more romantic. I am betting it was all garter belts and such at the outset. Welcome to LTR land, folks. Women adopt and like its less diligent aspects, too.

BTW,this whole "romance" things strikes me as a first world "problem", if there ever was one. That is to say, the lack of "romance" is not a problem at all, except for anomie-filled, well-fed, safe, moderately-entertained people who push their own sense of vague unease onto a nearby loved one, using such sighing complaints as a passive aggressive burden shift. (pause for deep breath after run on sentence....)

Somehow this woman transfers onto him the requirement of filling whatever void she apparently feels is there, in her. What is he to do? Unspecified, is my guess. When is he done doing that? Again, unspecified.

What a confidence game she runs here: he is asked to solve a problem that doesn't objectively exist, using means not clearly defined, and the desired level of satisfaction (which will never be objectively measurable) may or may not be announced when reached. That is the last sort of quest anyone sane would accept. Yet we have people here suggesting he is all but obligated to do so.

What is really impressive about this con she is pulling is that she doesn't think it is a con. And neither do most of the people watching it unfold. Her girlfriends, like comment-posters here, nod in sympathetic agreement to her complaints, thinking that her sighs and far-away glances are indisputable evidence of something other than simple M.F.ing ennui that attends life not lived fully. Those enabling sort also actually believe, like this GF/wife/whatever, that he really should do something here to solve issues with post-modern life in the first world.

Women may like lapdogs, but not as lovers. Attempts to solve post-modern emptiness expressed in this way are warning signs.

But I think I am being to gentle. Perhaps I need to shift my focus to him: If he was my friend, I would tell him to quit worrying about a woman's boredom, and instead focus on being a real world version of the hysterical ad campaign hightlighting the World's Most Interesting Man. In fact, attempts to provide her with enough romance to satisfy her could, perversely, arouse odd feelings of contempt in her. All of us know plenty of examples of Herbs who hopelessly tried to romance a woman into a relationship, as she became increasingly creeped out by his earnest devotion. (Sad to watch, wasn't it?)

(Man, I am really feeling the Nietzsche vibe tonight. I think the Abyss is not so bad looking right about now.)

What's with assuming she's stiffing him on sex?

I see the comment on that -- a rather angry one -- comes from one of the commenters who seems to have a lot of resentment for women.

Wow. Just...wow!

I agree with Spartee as far as this goes: We have talked at length about what a guy has to do to get laid: wine, dine, chores, massage. Essentially bending over backwards in pretty much every way LESS then one carat earrings to 'rev her engines'. 'Make her feel sexy and you can get sex schmuck.'

Well, 'to make him give you romance, you need to make him feel romantic'. So advice to her (entirely unsolicited, but I'm a FULL SERVICE PSEUDO ADVISOR, anwering questions not even asked) would be to make him feel romantic and appreciated. And I even offered a way or two to do that.

What this has to do with 'stiffing him for sex', I just don't know. I'm also looking for an angry resentful post. Maybe Miss Alkon can point it out a bit more specifically.

I am always amazed at a few men who assume the problem is the woman is not giving enough sex. The LW did not say that at all. He sounds like he cares about his wife and would like to remedy something he is no longer doing.

Women want to feel appreciated just like men do. For us it is a little romance. FEw if any women equate that with large diamonds or other jewelry. It is small gestures, it is once in a while thinking about the other person and doing something for them they like. For some women it is doing chores without being reminded. For me it was realizing sometimes I just wanted to get out and he stopped by the deli and the wine store and we went up the canyon for a candlelight dinner and blankets lay back and watch the stars and snuggle. Sometimes it was me taking care of something he needed to get done and handing him a ski pass when my knee was recovering from a ligament injury. He was not skiing because I was injured and could not go.

It is not hard, all it takes is a little consideration. For me and most of my female friends we actually do try and think of things to do to make the man in our life happy. (we are not grasping harpies from hell) If a man returns the consideration once in a while we are usually thrilled. IF a man pays attention he can usually find all kinds of little things to do.

By the way boys, believe it or not there are women, real women, who like sex just as much as you do. However if we are working full time, have kids to take care of and are doing all the household chores as well, you tell me when there is any time for any quality sex.

By the way girls, believe it or not there are men, real men, who like romance just as much as you do. However if we are working full time, have kids to take care of, have to mow the lawn and clean the gutters and have limited time and budgets, you tell me when there is any time for any quality romance.

Hostess: "What's with assuming she's stiffing him on sex? I see the comment on that -- a rather angry one -- comes from one of the commenters who seems to have a lot of resentment for women. "

With all respectful tones I can muster: reading fail. (hey, we've all been there) I don't believe anyone assumed that. I don't believe anyone suggested that. The matter is brought up here not to suggest that is occuring in this man's life, but rather to show the interesting (and quite unfair) tendency to make relationship stressors something the guy must solve.

BTW,this whole "romance" things strikes me as a first world "problem", if there ever was one.

In that case, then the stereotypical male concern with their partners staying attractive and fit is also a first world problem. Much of the world's population doesn't have the time or energy to worry about such nonsense. We could probably all afford to quit our bitching.

By the way girls, believe it or not there are men, real men, who like romance just as much as you do.

Good. Then we're all in agreement that men and women both like romance and sex, and there's nothing wrong in doing what needs to be done to get more of both. Glad we settled that.

Also, Spartee, you're going to throw your back out hauling around that much bitterness. You've turned a very reasonable human need for appreciation into some kind of pseudo-psychological analysis of post-modern emptiness. Somehow you've equated any accommodation to what she wants as capitulation to the feminist whip. That's not a good way to keep a marriage going. In fact, you sound a lot like the nuttier feminists who equate all sex with rape.

Perhaps it's a good thing you are not his friend. This guy seems like he's in a pretty good marriage and wants some advice on making it better. By the end of your talk with him, he'd be convinced picking up some sweet rolls at the bakery on his way home from work was an effeminate gesture designed by feminists to keep him in his place as a woman's slave-boy.

On the other hand, maybe women should adopt the effective reverse of your suggestion. Why be concerned with your husband's sexual needs if you don't feel like it? Why care about the sexual frustration of a man when we all know men like the chase and aren't interested in women once they've made the catch? Make him wait, ladies. Make him really earn that once-a-month sex. He'll appreciate you so much more if it's a rare, precious thing.

Sounds a little whacked, doesn't it?

It never ceases to amaze me how much effort both men and women will make to justify their lack of effort towards making the relationship better.

"It is small gestures, it is once in a while thinking about the other person..."

That's it, exactly, and who really hasn't the time to do those things? It actually takes more time to bitch about "having to do them" than doing them does.

My little doggie died early yesterday morning. It was sudden and upsetting, so my husband took a few minutes from work yesterday afternoon and bought me some flowers.

Yeah, he was tired. Yeah, he'd been up all night with me - rushing to the vet, doing doggie CPR. Yeah, he's already nabbed me and seen me in my "comfy jammies". He could easily justify NOT making that small gesture of love, but he did it to show he was thinking of me.

That is not a man any reasonable woman would view as a "wuss". That is a man who is going to be contendly married for a long time because I appreciate how well he looks after me and strive to reciprocate.

My little doggie died early yesterday morning. It was sudden and upsetting, so my husband took a few minutes from work yesterday afternoon and bought me some flowers.

To veer off the topic slightly: I'm so sorry about your dog. Your husband sounds like a keeper.

Thanks, Amy and Monica. You know, the thing is, I've had just as much love and consideration shown by my friends, and that is, after all, what romantic partners should be - friends.

I don't get this view that some have that their partners are like adversaries that they must keep manipulating or trying to one-up in some twisted game.

If you're the kind of person who sees your partner as an adversary, then you either spend a lot of time alone or attract other people who see you as an adversary. Generous people don't stick around long for that.

I prefer the term "oral sex." Although I hate getting it.

What is that joke? What food cuts back a woman's sex drive 90%? Wedding Cake

Allow me to juxtapose this:

On the other hand, maybe women should adopt the effective reverse of your suggestion. Why be concerned with your husband's sexual needs if you don't feel like it? Why care about the sexual frustration of a man when we all know men like the chase and aren't interested in women once they've made the catch? Make him wait, ladies. Make him really earn that once-a-month sex. He'll appreciate you so much more if it's a rare, precious thing.

With this:

However if we are working full time, have kids to take care of and are doing all the household chores as well, you tell me when there is any time for any quality sex.

So, this 'whacked out' idea is actually pretty broadly believed in male circles already...and sometimes for good reason. The frustrations that Spartee is expressing isn't developing in a vacuum.

The frustrations that Spartee is expressing isn't developing in a vacuum.

And neither are women's concerns about lack of romance. But it's completely unreasonable to think that we should resolve these problems by refusing to give even an inch. That's the way to divorce court, not a happy marriage.

It would not hurt men and women to take an honest look at their behavior. If women really are working full time and doing most of the child care and chores, then men can certainly step in to make that arrangement more equal. The same goes for women if men are doing the lion's share of the work. In these cases, the lack of romance and sex is more about resentment than fatigue.

Marriages would be happier if people accepted they were in a partnership, not a war.

I had to put down one of my dogs, which was supposedly easier since I had a chance to get my mind around the loss. Still cried like a baby.

My sympathies.

MonicaP,

Yes, as a generic statement of intent, and in principle, your point is very well made.

Here is the kicker. I'm betting you have a lot of girlfriends. I'm sure you've had a lot of talks with a lot of girlfriends.

How many times have you heard the phrase (or a similar one) 'If he expects to get any, he better...(insert demand here)' from one of these worthies?

Do you think it fair that women in general seem to treat their pussy as some sort of currency? (since we're getting all graphic with the language)

Generally, men DON'T seem to treat romance as a currency (more as another chore, in many cases). Excuse me. That isn't entirely accurate. They view is a the coin they need to put into the slot of the woman to MAYBE get a shot at some pussy.

But you seldom seem to hear a guy say 'If she expects me to take her to dinner and dancing, she better (insert demand here)'. If men feel underappreciated, they aren't romantic.

If women feel underappreciated, they withhold sex.

Nice vicious circle.

Actually, that goes both ways. I have only one friend who says the "if he expects to get any" thing. Most of my friends like sex or at least realize the importance of it.

It's not unheard of for men to bring home flowers when they want something, or to get out of a mess. In this case, they are using romance for a targeted goal.

Both approaches cheapen what should be an act of love.

But at any rate, I'm not sure what any of this has to do with whether this guy should make an effort to be more romantic. People do lots of shitty things to each other, but none of that seems in evidence here.

"How many times have you heard the phrase (or a similar one) 'If he expects to get any, he better...(insert demand here)' from one of these worthies?"

Flydye, I can only speak for myself, but I haven't heard any of my girlfriends say something like that. You may believe we talk like that when we're together, but we don't....at least my friends don't.

Mostly, we talk about how much we like having sex with our guys...or bitch that we're NOT getting it.

Maybe it's a middle-age thing, but quite a few of my girlfriends don't get enough sex. It's the guys who are witholding, or would rather watch TV.

Agreed, LS. The one friend I have who does that sort of thing did it before they got married, so her husband knew what he was getting into.

"Also, Spartee, you're going to throw your back out hauling around that much bitterness."

Ah, here we go. The ad hominem.

By contrast, I will not personalize this matter. Rather, I assume you are a full, psychologically-healthy, and all-around wonderful person who has fully and fairly considered (with all appropriate emotional remove) my thought experiment, but who now presents a reasoned counterpoint. (Can you hear the internet smoking and overheating as a first-time event occurs: the display of logical charity?) Proceeding from that starting place....

"Somehow you've equated ANY accommodation to what she wants as CAPITULATION to the feminist WHIP." (Caps included to highlight overstatements/and imputing of arguments that were not made.)

No, I didn't. You are putting words and positions into my posts that I did not write, in order to attack those overstatments and imputed positions. This is called "straw man" in debate terms, and it is considered an error and nonresponsive arguing.

"In fact, you sound a lot like the nuttier feminists who equate all sex with rape."

Um, no, I don't. Some fictional strawman position you created does, not me.

"By the end of your talk with him, he'd be convinced picking up some sweet rolls at the bakery on his way home from work was an effeminate gesture designed by feminists to keep him in his place as a woman's slave-boy. "

See above. Note the overblown rhetorical tropes, once again used to create a strawman position.

Also, if she is presenting the solution to her ills as "I would be made satisfied for more romance by picking him up sweet rolls", this guy has no real problem. At least not one that cannot be solved by buying Krispy Kreme's poisons.

But your red herring here is that she apparently did NOT present that sort of solution. You made that up. Again, you. made. that. up. The gal seems to present--according to the letter--a much vaguer, non-objective complaint of, well, who really knows, right? More romance...

"On the other hand, maybe women should adopt the effective reverse of your suggestion. Why be concerned with your husband's sexual needs if you don't feel like it? Why care about the sexual frustration of a man when we all know men like the chase and aren't interested in women once they've made the catch? Make him wait, ladies. Make him really earn that once-a-month sex. He'll appreciate you so much more if it's a rare, precious thing. "

I think we see the results of such behavior here with sad spouses contemplating divorce. It does not sound like good advice. Glad I am not giving that advice. The nice thing about people complaining about a lack of sex is that you can objectively address the complaint with more sex, an activity that can be fairly easily identified and tracked.

But more romance. Hmmm. What is that, anyway?

Anyway, in recap, my thoughts were, in sum, (1) guys tend to get the "you fix it, buster" speech, without much consideration that they are too often seen as the default fixer of such issues, even when the issues are subjective matters residing solely in the chemical stew found inside another person's skull and (2) perhaps he should not embark on what sounds like a hopeless quest to satisfy subjective wants (that could even stem from other issues). Unless the woman can bring something more objective than she wants "more romance", he will likely find himself in the same boat as those poor slobs who think that choreplay will get them sex. That boat being an endless game of "Is *this* enough? How about this? THIS?!"

Humans have endless needs and wants. To attempt to satisfy another's vague expressions of wanting more of some subjective feeling is to sign up for Sisyphus' hell. (Again, by contrast a mate pining for more sex is fairly easily accomodated, absent physical disability.)

Finally, to go back to my original point, the some of the same people who in the past advocated "choreplay" seem to advocate him embarking on the quest to provide her "romance".

The more I consider it, that may be really her wistful wish for the thrill of their once-new relationship--i.e., something that is in the past now. And if so, then his task is truly hopeless.

By contrast, I will not personalize this matter. Rather, I assume you are a full, psychologically-healthy, and all-around wonderful person who has fully and fairly considered (with all appropriate emotional remove) my thought experiment, but who now presents a reasoned counterpoint. (Can you hear the internet smoking and overheating as a first-time event occurs: the display of logical charity?)

It's not any less an ad hominem just because you decided to be a sarcastic douche canoe about it.

The thing is, this guy has a good idea of what she wants. He WAS romantic before. He's not now.

None of this has to anything to do with vague needs and wants and choreplay and all the things you want to believe it does. This is a simple issue of a guy wanting to make his wife happy and looking for suggestions. It's not the intractable social problem you seem to think it is.

He's not even asking, "Should I be more romantic?" He wants to be. He wants advice on how to be. The fact that you think he should not make that effort in the first place says more about you than it does about gender relations in general.

Well, to answer THAT question, one wonders why he's bothering with asking the question.

There are BOOKS written on how to be romantic, with thousands of suggestions.

So it's really a matter of $19.99...and a desire to do this. Hmm. There is the rub. He doesn't feel motivated to be romantic.

LS,

Yes. I have heard from some of our other posters about how they'd scream to have their husbands spoon screw them at 3 a.m....or any other time or place that they'd desire.

I have two answers to that, both interrelated.

1) Middle aged girls, from what I've read, are going into their 'last licks of fertility', 'self esteem aging' hypersexuality while men are starting to get tired.

2) The man-monkey has spent the last 20 years pushing the darned button and the pussy dispenser has been frequently intermittent. But the Cubs come on every Monday every time he pushes the button. So does internet Barbie. So it's a matter of training and cost/benefit ratios...

I'm sure the variation of the mix of 1 and 2 is unique to each couple.

Flydye: Waning male interest in sex may also have a lot to do with hormones. A lot of men start having sexual problems in their late 40s and early 50s. If he's not as interested or he's having more difficulty in that area, it can seem less worth the trouble. It's also around the time when women are frequently free from the greater demands of childrearing and their sex drive perks up again. Mother Nature is an asshole.

As for the LW: Keep in mind that this was a conversation he had with Amy in person, and she asked him to write it as a letter. He probably could have sorted it out on his own.

In the end, yes, he always has the option of saying: "Screw this, honey bunch. Your needs are not my needs. Go get your romance fix somewhere else." Like women always have the option of telling their husbands and boyfriends to make do with the company of their right hand. That path doesn't usually end well for anyone.

"It's not any less an ad hominem just because you decided to be a sarcastic douche canoe about it."

Please note that I still refuse to participate in name-calling, even if you keep doing it. . I explicity refrained from previously suggesting you were anything other than a well-put-together person. I do so again.

Does that really make me sarcastic, or a "douche canoe?" You personlized that disagreement by making the conversation about my failings as a person. I still refuse to do so.

Spartee and Flydye, your views about relationships are rather depressing. I would suggest that these views arise from a PARTNER problem more than a behavior problem.

If you're indeed involved with a woman with "endless subjective needs" that you can never make happy - who belittles your efforts and uses sex as currency - then, you're right, it's futile to try, but that doesn't support the idea that other men shouldn't try to please THEIR partners.

Obviously, many women on this blog are quite fulfilled by the little gestures of thoughtfulness and romance and choreplay that our men show us. We're not complaining that they should be bigger or somehow different...or, hell, we don't know WHAT we want!

In fact, we've been quite specific about how much we appreciate these small, sweet gestures and how romantic and sexy we find them.

I don't know how any of this leads to the conclusion that trying to please your woman just doesn't work. Maybe it doesn't work with the women you're with, or have been with, but, as I said, that's a partner problem, not proof that the task is unaccomplishable.

Of course you personalized it (as did I). Re-read your bit in the parentheses.

I initially called you bitter, and you are.

I don't assume you are a terrible person. You are likely a fine person in general, but your views on women and gender relations here have consistently been tinged with bitterness. I am sorry for whatever happened there, but it does not speak of relationships everywhere.

One thing men and women do have in common vis-a-vis long-term relationships is the feeling of being unappreciated for what they do to contribute to the couple's shared life. Years ago I had a room-mate who "dated" several married police officers. These dates consisted of their showing up at our apartment in the middle of their night shift to bend her ear about their troubles. The recurring theme of their complaints about their marriages was (1) being unappreciated by their wives and (2) the wives letting themselves go appearance-wise. This theme of unappreciation has been repeated at virtually every girls' night out I've ever attended by women discussing their marriages.

This feeling inevitably leads to resentment. Perhaps resentful husbands are more likely to stray, and resentful wives are more likely to withhold sex. The resentment gets expressed, one way or another.

Familiarity...especially constant close quarters, spotlight shining on familiarity...can breed contempt. It might take deliberate effort to keep reminding yourself of the positives and to show appreciation for them.

LS,

You have an inaccurate read on my SO. Facts not in evidence.

Many women in my presence have sex as a magic cookie to wave under their partner's nose to get their way. Hence currency. That this idea seems like an epiphany to you is a bit incredible...

But to the point:

Let's take a related issue: Adultery

If a man cheats, he gets screwed over by the legal system. He loses access to his kids, likely his house, and an enormous amount of his current and future assets. Nothing to complain about here.

If a WOMAN cheats, HE gets screwed over by the legal system. HE loses access to his kids, likely his house, and an enormous amount of his current and future assets. A great frigging lot to complain about here!

Spartee is speaking very generally about a common thread: If the man is dissatisfied, he is expected to fix it. If a woman is dissatisfied, HE is expected to fix it.

It got particularly egregious with that family bed letter. It would be hard to find a wronger woman, and yet she had a legion of defenders and/or apologists. I've noted that understanding just rains down on the woman...but the male emotional needs or wants seem to be not met with the same...intensity (if any understanding is sent his way)

She should try to encourage him to be more romantic. Or she can complain. Hmm.

Spartee made a good point: If the man isn't sending flowers as often, it's just as likely she probably isn't dressing the same way or being the sex vixen she was three (THREE??? There's a big WTF!) years ago when they were single and dating. So for all her complaints about his lack of romance, he could probably mention a bit of lack in his partner too. Or do you think she's perfect? That she hasn't gotten 'comfortable' in the relationship and might be letting her side of the bargain down?

I know...he doesn't mention it. Is it so unlikely?

"It might take deliberate effort to keep reminding yourself of the positives and to show appreciation for them."

That's completely true, and, in my opinion, the ability to do that is what separates happy people - and happy couples - from miserable ones. It's not the specifics of their lives, or their relationships, but their ability to focus more on the positives than the negatives.

Those who tend to dwell on the negatives can always find some, and the ironic thing is that dwelling on them tends to create even more. If that's what you're looking for, it's what you'll see, and the more you see, the more there'll be!

"Those who tend to dwell on the negatives can always find some, and the ironic thing is that dwelling on them tends to create even more. If that's what you're looking for, it's what you'll see, and the more you see, the more there'll be!"

You succintly drew a conclusion from my post. Happiness may be less about getting what you think you want than it is about appreciating what you have. That said, people have to compromise to find the golden mean. Zero compromise = dead relationship.

"Or do you think she's perfect? That she hasn't gotten 'comfortable' in the relationship and might be letting her side of the bargain down?"

No, I think both sides often drop the ball and/or take the other for granted. The question is what are you going to do about it? The only behavior any of us has any real control over is our own.

So, the two options we have are to withdraw or try to be closer, even when the other person may be letting us down.

The most common choice is to withdraw. We're all afraid of getting hurt or being further disappointed, so making the choice to try even harder - to become even more vulnerable - is tougher. But, in my experience, that's the only answer to resolving relationship issues. The times when you feel the least close to the other person - the most hurt, angry or resentful - are the times when extending yourself through small, loving gestures matters the most.

Of course, you can wait for the other person, but that may be a long, miserable wait.

flydye: "I know...he doesn't mention it. Is it so unlikely?"

It's not unlikely at all, it's just not the reason he provided for his change in behavior. He believes the change is due to having nabbed her forever and the thrill of the chase being gone. If it was because of something she was doing or failing to do, you'd think he would say so. Most people don't hesitate a whole lot to justify themselves when they feel they're being wronged.

He also doesn't say it's because she's started beating him with a hammer every morning. There's no reason to assume it's so if it isn't stated just because it meshes with our personal view of human nature.

Also:

If a man cheats, he gets screwed over by the legal system. He loses access to his kids, likely his house, and an enormous amount of his current and future assets. Nothing to complain about here.

If a WOMAN cheats, HE gets screwed over by the legal system. HE loses access to his kids, likely his house, and an enormous amount of his current and future assets. A great frigging lot to complain about here!

This isn't really about sexual currency as much as it is about the fact that life isn't fair. A lot of women get screwed over in divorce settlements because their husbands hide assets or take off and don't pay child support, but what's that got to do with the price of eggs?

The most important thing this situation has in common with the kid who wouldn't get out of bed is that both male LWs were the ones who wrote in with the problem. It helps not at all to tell these people, "Well your wife should do this, this and this." Their wives aren't reading this (probably), and they can't make their wives do anything. They can only alter their own behavior, or throw their hands in the air and give up, as someone inevitably suggests. In cases in which the LW has been female, the advice is skewed toward what she can do to solve the problem.

Also, no one here seems to think this guy is a bad person. He just fell out of a good habit.

Silly girl. That is because hammers leave such identifiable bruises.

She's using a towel and a bar of soap.

But if your personal view of human nature includes women who are perfect and the men who constantly fail them...surely that is more accurate.

But if your personal view of human nature includes women who are perfect and the men who constantly fail them...surely that is more accurate.

And I said that where?

BTW: I prefer a sock and 30 bucks in quarters for my beat-downs.

Oops. Saw your latest and the last line.

I thought for sure that I was eating low snark breakfast cereals....

My apologies

Careful. You might date yourself. Death Wish I.

Hee. Nothing beats a sock full of quarters. When you don't need to put the hurt on someone, you can just do some laundry.

A lot of women get screwed over in divorce settlements because their husbands hide assets or take off and don't pay child support, but what's that got to do with the price of eggs?

Statistically most child support orders are far above what is acctually needed for child support, most fathers who dont pay fail to do so because of incial problems, and the few how can afford to pay usually refuse becuase they dont get to see their kids anyway. Also non custodial mothers fail to pay child support in a much larger ratio then men

Statistically most child support orders are far above what is acctually needed for child support, most fathers who dont pay fail to do so because of incial problems, and the few how can afford to pay usually refuse becuase they dont get to see their kids anyway. Also non custodial mothers fail to pay child support in a much larger ratio then men

Still has nothing to do with this situation. It's a diversion.

So was bringing up child support in the first place

We're not complaining that they should be bigger or somehow different...or, hell, we don't know WHAT we want!

And yet with this rather frustrated and honest statement, we are supposed to be able to ascertain what exactly it is you want. Without, as Spartee said, any usable metric. I can count the blowjobs I get. How do you count the romance?

I know...it just IS. And this isn't for the faint of heart. But I've been on the wrong side of the communication disconnect myself to be so blase about the demands of a woman which were seemingly unsatisfiable. And I doubt I'm anywhere near the only one.

Women only say they have simple needs.

Well, flydye, I think you've gotten involved with the wrong women. It would be like me dating a series of control freaks or abusers, then saying, "Men are all jerks!" because that has been my personal experience.

Women in this thread have shared their delight in various SMALL, SIMPLE gestures - checking our oil, putting the dishes away, folding a load of laundry, or bringing home some drugstore flowers.

How much more evidence do you need that plenty of women do, in fact, appreciate these simple gestures? Believe me, if it were otherwise, women here would be bitching about how they don't get diamonds or fancy meals out, not sharing that their guys do these sweet, simple things for them.

Of course, what is special to one woman may not be the same for another. It's not quite as easy as blow jobs (which almost every guy loves), but if a man pays even a little bit of attention to his partner, he should be able to come up with some ways to show her he's thinking of her, and to a reasonable woman, that is romantic.

Wow.

I've been lurking on Amy's site for a few weeks and have posted on one other letter ("Girl with a Wait Problem") so I am a comparative newb.

My general question: Why must anyone feel the need to go beyond what the LW asks? He gives the information we need. Amy knows him personally, so knows WHAT we need to know. His wife says he's not "romantic" anymore and he accepts her "grievance" as sound and wants advice to help him fulfill her needs in their marriage. This means, to me, that he acknowledges the fact that, in his words, the thrill of the chase is over for him, so he has been taking her for granted, basically, and now he would like to rekindle that thrill in his wife. There is no "guilt" or "blame", just a desire to make his wife happy. Is there a problem with that? Did he SAY there was a problem on his wife's end? NO.

I have been happily, warmly married for almost 22 years. We delight in each other and do small things to show it. He knows I love fresh flowers in the house, so when he picks up a few things at the grocery store, he *sometimes* buys me a small bouquet. He has a water bottle on his side of the bed because he gets thirsty at night and I try to make sure it is always full of fresh water. It's HIS bottle, meaning I have never used it, but yet I fill it for him. I make his lunch every day and sometimes put little love notes in it. He sends me an email once in a while from work... just few sweet words.. and it makes my day! And we tell each other "thanks for that!"
The secret to a good relationship is for both to put the other person first. That means you really get to know the prospective spouse WELL before committing. If you both listen and empathize, it's easy. If you find the right partner, it's easy. If you find the wrong one, you will both suffer. My first marriage was a very, VERY bad one. It was a one-way street: I gave, he took, to the point of abuse. My husband had the same experience with his ex. You cannot believe how that has helped us be good to each other.
This LW wants nothing more than to be good to his wife and I think that's admirable.

My question to flydye and Spartee: Why all the negativity? Why must you turn it around (via extrapolation only) and say that SHE must have some failing... not giving him what HE needs? Just read the letter and respond without the chip on your shoulder. Sounds to me like you have not found the right partner and you are unhappy because of that.

Thanks, Amy.

Reading the letter at face value, I really think this couple have the right idea. She was open with him in the fact that she told him straight up what she was missing, and he, while not taking offense, sought advice from you as to how to fix it. This tells me that they each care very deeply for each other and have open lines of communication. They listen to each other's needs without taking it personally. That's the second secret.

I met my husband at 37 years of age (he was 5 years younger) and we knew very quickly from TALKING to each other, that we were a good match. Too many people enter a relationship with the mindset of "what's in it for ME? What do you have to offer ME?" and that's sad. It almost invariably leads to heartache.

flydye, you seem to often speak through some giant chip on your shoulder.

Thank you for the criticism and I shall take it with the same grace, poise and weight that you treated my rather benign (your words) critiques.

Well, flydye, I think you've gotten involved with the wrong women. It would be like me dating a series of control freaks or abusers, then saying, "Men are all jerks!" because that has been my personal experience.

So...I haven't met a 'normal' woman in all my life? Isn't that the 'no true scotsman' fallacy?

But actually, you are misinterpreting my words, so I'll explain in a hopefully clearer fashion.

Point one is that Spartee said that in a great number of letters, it is always the man's fault for X, Y, and Z. I agree with him on this in principle. Specifically in this case, I stated (First comment I made) was that it doesn't matter much because while, yes, the 'fault' of whatever seems to be unequally thrown on the man, in this case only the man can modify his behavior.

Point two was dealing with the comfort issue. The man 'feels comfortable' in the relationship. However, if I suggest (heretic!) that she maybe was comfortable too, maybe slacking in making him feel romantic, that somehow this is wrong wrong wrong and not written in his letter...that Amy directed, read, rewrote and submitted to us. (Note this is not accusatory. But it might not have occured to this guy to mention his feelings on the relationship...particularly with a solictied letter his wife might read)

I do not consider it outside the pale.
Taking the other person for granted is human, not male, nature.

I think it's wrong to focus on "fault". Everybody fails in certain areas of their relationship. In this particular instance, the man is writing in and specifically assuming "fault" for this problem, and asking where he could improve, so I see no purpose in suggesting to him that it may be her "fault" when we have nothing in evidence to support that. All it would do would deflate his enthusiasm towards addressing the issue, while he looks for ways to place blame on her. That's counterproductive.

This is my first comment here. My husband and I have been happily married for almost 35 years. LW, you've gotten some good advice from Amy, LS, cathyem and others. Something else for you to consider: When we get used to seeing another person in the same roles and circumstances, we may start thinking we know all about them. The truth is there is always more to discover.

Many people understand the value of trying something new in bed, but forget it also applies to life in general. So, mix things up a bit. Plan some surprises for both of you.

Make some pleasant changes to your home. It's where you spend most of your time together, and it affects your mood. Make your bedroom especially appealing and comfortable. Pick out some gorgeous bedding together.

Change your looks. It doesn't have to be something big, and it doesn't have to be permanent. Wear something different. If you never wear a hat, buy a fedora. (See "White Collar".) If you'd like to grow a beard (or shave off your beard), try it. Ask her to help you pick out a cologne or after shave that she thinks is sexy. Ask her what she would like you to wear in bed. (You might get quite a surprise.) Learn at least enough of a foreign language to say something romantic in it.

Keep learning and growing and stretching yourself. Try some role-playing in 'real' life. Most of us have ways we usually act, but we also have a range of ways we could act if we chose to. Let her see some different sides of you. For example, if you're usually quiet at parties, pretend to be out-going. (You're excused, Gregg.)

Schedule dates, and try new things. My husband and I take turns planning surprises for each other. The planner makes a good faith effort to choose something neither has ever tried, but s/he believes both will enjoy (or at least be willing to try), or something we've both enjoyed in the past but haven't done for awhile. Once the activity starts, we both make a good faith effort to get in the spirit of things. Of course if either one of us ever really hated something, we wouldn't have to do it.

One of my favorite surprises was visiting several art galleries. Neither one of us has much interest in the kind of art we expected to find there, but we walked around and looked at everything. We liked a few things, were appalled by some of them, and almost died laughing at others. (We did wait until we had left each gallery.) We finished up with lunch at a Greek restaurant, the first time either one of us had tried Greek food. We loved the restaurant and went back several times.

So have some fun, add some sparkle, and find out what you don't know about each other.

"So have some fun, add some sparkle, and find out what you don't know about each other."

Rm, your post, and the one about Steve Job's sister's eulogy, really brightened my day and filled me with inspiration. You and your husband have a great relationship - one I wish more people would emulate.

My question to flydye and Spartee: Why all the negativity? Why must you turn it around (via extrapolation only) and say that SHE must have some failing... not giving him what HE needs? Just read the letter and respond without the chip on your shoulder. Sounds to me like you have not found the right partner and you are unhappy because of that.

Allow me to answer your question, cathyem, since you seem new here.

If you check the archives, you will find a letter by a man who was essentially tossed out of his marital bed by a woman who demanded that her kids sleep with the family...despite the fact that they weren't able to share marital relations (something she wasn't interested in anyway) and despite the fact he couldn't sleep with six year old feet in his face.

His wife wouldn't discuss it with him. It was HIS problem, he needed to get over it. How dare he insist on having a bed with his wife (even, in the spirit of compromise, one which included the newborn baby)

And in that little piece, every single excuse and exoneration was rolled out by many of the women here. How did HE fail? Why was he trying to force his wife to have sex with him? Was't he a heartless brute by making her shred her perinium further by his beastial demands for sex! All sorts of sins, failings and stuff not written in the letter was thrown at this guy.

Eventually, by dint of reason and constant badgering, the women sullenly admitted that, yes, the woman was a bitch and probably (maybe, provincially) wrong (But with good excuses) but that was irrelevant and the guy NEEDED TO FIX THE PROBLEM. The one he didn't really make.

Check her archive. Use 'family bed'

That was one of the worst examples of gender inequity of blame on the site, but it wasn't an isolated one. It happens to differing measures from both sides all the time.

This also goes to a long recurring discussion the site has had on sex and choreplay. According to the women on the site, men are required to make the woman feel sexy, doing innumerable and undefined tasks to 'get her in the mood'. (God forbid we characterize this as emotional blackmail or a quid pro quo) Grout the tub, give her flowers, cure cancer, get a raise, bathe regularly. Whatever it takes.

Well, fine. I can accept that.

So let's turn it on it's head. If it's the man's job to make the wife 'feel sexy' why isn't it her job to make him 'feel more romantic'?

So far I haven't heard a good answer why sauce for the goose isn't also good as sauce for the gander.

"And in that little piece, every single excuse and exoneration was rolled out by many of the women here. How did HE fail? Why was he trying to force his wife to have sex with him? Was't he a heartless brute by making her shred her perinium further by his beastial demands for sex! All sorts of sins, failings and stuff not written in the letter was thrown at this guy."

If you check the archives, cathyem, you'll see clearly that no one said anything like that. The husband wrote in, on the edge of possible divorce, and many of us women felt that was too extreme, given that there was a family and very young children involved.

We also speculated that the wife might be depressed post-partum and/or exhausted - perfectly legitimate considerations. Few, if any, of us believed what she was doing was normal or ok.

Most of the men said, "She's a bitch. Dump her!"

To me, the gender differences that exist here are that women, being more the peacemakers and social gatekeepers, usually address these issues in constructive ways. How can this problem be fixed? How can this relationship be saved?

When the male is the one who writes in, we are quite aware that the only person we can address is him, not his partner. His behavior and actions are the only ones we have have any chance at all of impacting (assuming he's even reading).

The guys, however, want us to tell a male LW that his partner is simply a bitch and he should divorce her...break up the family...leave little kids in a broken home...and go find someone to have sex with.

Otherwise, they suggest we're one-sided, but that's not a fair assessment.

Also, the irony is that while men are usually the first to suggest divorce, they also complain bitterly about how unfair the divorce process is towards men. So, I never get why they maintain the guy will be better off leaving at the first sign of discord, rather than making an effort to save the relationship first.

We also speculated that the wife might be depressed post-partum and/or exhausted - perfectly legitimate considerations.

I.E. made stuff up not in the letter.

I speculated, i.e. made stuff up not in the letter, that maybe the wife wasn't the same cheery newlywed that she was three years ago.

But one is a valid point of discussion as a wife kicks her husband out of bed, but the other...isn't.

Also, the irony is that while men are usually the first to suggest divorce, they also complain bitterly about how unfair the divorce process is towards men. So, I never get why they maintain the guy will be better off leaving at the first sign of discord, rather than making an effort to save the relationship first.

Suggest, not initiate. Please check the stats.

Do you think that that situation was the 'first signs of discord'?

What odds did you give that relationship, absent unmentioned depression?

"I speculated, i.e. made stuff up not in the letter, that maybe the wife wasn't the same cheery newlywed that she was three years ago."

They're totally different. This LW says nothing negative AT ALL about his wife, so there's nothing we need to speculate about her. Why?

The other LW said his wife wasn't having sex with him and was keeping kids in the bed, long past what seemed normal.

Almost all of us agreed she had some sort of issue because almost all of us agreed (male and female) that a wife should have more frequent sex with her husband. The speculative question was "What's her problem?" Is she depressed, mentally unstable, or exhausted from nursing/caregiving? Or maybe she just stopped loving/liking him? (and, if so, why?)

Since she wasn't the one writing in, we couldn't ask her, "What's your problem?" So, we asked the husband to objectively assess the situation. Not to place blame, but to see if there was possibly something he could do to salvage the relationship.

"What odds did you give that relationship, absent unmentioned depression?"

Again, it would depend on why she was avoiding sex, and this is something we couldn't find out. If she just needed medication for depression, the odds would be much better. If she was resentful or bitter towards him for some reason, or was unfufilled by their sex life because he's not a good lover, the odds are much worse.

But these two people chose each other for some reason, so it's reasonable to assume that they had something going for them at one time and might be able to bring it back.

>

Thanks, LS. I've learned a lot from your posts, so that means a lot to me.

So, I never get why they maintain the guy will be better off leaving at the first sign of discord, rather than making an effort to save the relationship first.
Posted by: LS

Because women, regardless of their 'reputaion' a peacekeepers file for a amjority of all divorces, as the file first they have longer to prepare for the legal battle and that preparedness helps contribute to their winning.

But guys suggesting guys file first we are "speculting" that advantage will go to the guy

Oh, I totally agree. This seems almost like a nonquestion. I recall one book which had one romantic idea per page. He does one of them twice a week and he's in the clear.

My only hesitation is if this is their problem in a mere three years, watch out! Years 4 to 17 are much more...interesting.

***

But I call bullshit on your 'differences' in speculation.

I did a quick reread of that thread.

There was a hell of a lot of speculation in that thread, and half of it was directed at the Letter Writer!

He was

Needy

Sexually Obsessed

Not willing to help out around the house

Making her work hard when she had a newborn

Not willing to put the six year old in bed

Breaking his word to allow them to sleep in the bed

Not listening to the wife's heartfelt appeals to learn about parenting techniques.

Etc etc.

All of this was TOTALLY made up and NOT about the woman at all, but at ascribing fault to the man...excuse me...gently pointing out things wrong with his attitudes that he could fix (excuse me if I get those two things confused)

Everything about the woman was an explanation.

So as a principle, you don't get it both ways.

Maybe the Mr Romantic just didn't see the damaging things his wife was doing, just as Bedhead Dude didn't see all the pushy but unknowing demands he was subjecting his wife too.

And again. That letter was not about sex: it was about blatant and bald disrespect to her spouse, not because he couldn't get his rocks off. By constantly pushing that theme, you cheapen the actual problem while charaterizing it as some selfish urge on the husband's part. Sleeping in one's own bed is NOT selfish or needy.

"Because women, regardless of their 'reputaion' a peacekeepers file for a amjority of all divorces, as the file first they have longer to prepare for the legal battle and that preparedness helps contribute to their winning."

Filing for divorce isn't the same as causing the divorce. Most of my female friends have filed, but often, because they caught their spouse cheating. No matter who files first, one's behavior is what puts them at a disadvantage in a state where fault is considered.

In a no-fault state, it shouldn't matter who files. The only advantage either side would have would be gathering financial information in anticipation of divorce. But a lot of women get screwed on that end because they don't have that information. Men are often able to transfer or hide assets.

"So as a principle, you don't get it both ways."

We don't try to get it both ways. How come you don't notice when we bash the female? What about the recent thread with the serviceman who was dating the girl who wanted a "last fling?" She was roundly criticized by women in that thread and, not only that, Amy was criticized for seeming to side with her!

Of course, we speculate about what's going in cases if there seems to be a reason.

It was speculated that the LW's wife was, indeed, a coldhearted bitch for not having more sex with LW. It was speculated that she merely used him to have kids and never really loved him.

But what you don't get is that we don't like those theories because we can't fix that. You can't fix stupid and you can't fix coldhearted bitch.

We women want to resolve the problem somehow. Anybody can say, "Leave the bitch!". As Amy said in the serviceman thread, that's the easiest answer to give - and sometimes it's appropriate (as I believe it was in that thread).

But, you know, those threads are kind of boring. Ok, so you're with a cold-hearted bitch or an evil bastard...what do you want US to tell you? We can't fix that for you.

Yet, maybe if we speculate that he/she is possibly a redeemable person, there's some suggestions you might try, and some possibility for a more positive outcome.

That's all we were doing in the first LW's case...because many of us are moms and there were kids involved and we hoped there were things he could do to save his marriage, rather than hurt those little kids (and himself, going through the anguish of divorce).

It's not that we couldn't ponder the possibility she was a hopeless bitch. We just didn't want to in that particular case. But we called the other girl that and much worse, so I just don't see us as being gender biased.

We don't try to get it both ways. How come you don't notice when we bash the female? What about the recent thread with the serviceman who was dating the girl who wanted a "last fling?" She was roundly criticized by women in that thread and, not only that, Amy was criticized for seeming to side with her!

First off, you raise a fair point, though I think the bashing of Ms. Fling is described as a bit harsher then actually occured. And I agree that Ms. Alkon got it wrong that day. Truthfulness isn't necessarily always a virtue, particularly when cheating is the subject (His POV)

But in that mentioned thread, all the speculation was against the man, but for the woman.

And when we had that thread which had the man who took a vacation with his 'ex', there weren't too many rocks turned over trying to see his POV and anyone who did (se moi) was excoriated for doing so. So somehow 'cold hearted bastard' seems a label which some aren't so hesitant to apply.

I am not saying it is constant 100%. But I think if you open the door to speculation, then the door is well and fully open. For both sides. In every drama.

Flydye, I think people view these things based on their personal experiences, not necessarily gender. "Taking a vacation with my ex" sends a certain shudder down my spine, no matter who would say it. Those who have dealt with infidelity will generally hear that phrase as threatening and indicative of someone who is probably looking to cheat or isn't very committed.

So is "last fling". At least to me. Just happened to be a woman who uttered the phrase, but I don't need to try to "understand her POV". I'll call it like I see it. But it has nothing to do with gender. If a guy said it, I'd feel the same way.

In the past case, if the woman had written in saying, "I don't like to have sex with my husband, so I've been keeping the kids in bed with me so as to avoid it, and I'm thinking of leaving", I would've given her an earful about her responsibilities as a wife and her obligations as a mother, and probably lots of suggestions on how to improve their sex life. I would've told her to try everything she could before giving up on the marriage.

That's basically what I told him, so again, I just don't believe there's a gender bias.

I think that's another fair point.

I don't think my speculation out of line, nor do I think that it uncalled for to question what someone else might have done to damage a relationship, whether it's the spineless bed guy, the probably lying German dude, or Ms. Walks With Splayed Legs.

However, as a culture, I see men generally portrayed as wimps, idiots, or the authoritarian bullies so I get a bit senstive to exactly how and where we lay blame in a relationship.

So understand where I am coming from

Flydye, I do understand where you're coming from. I agree that depictions of men in modern media is awful - either idiots or jerks. As the mom of a son, I'm quite sensitive to it. But I don't find that attitude as much here, on Amy's blog. Maybe she attracts a more reasonable female? I think so. No woman who was truly biased against men would really enjoy her blog.

However, as a culture, I see men generally portrayed as wimps, idiots, or the authoritarian bullies so I get a bit senstive to exactly how and where we lay blame in a relationship.

So, because you admit sensitivity (thank you for that) you then feel a need to find blame for the female whether it exists or not? I'm trying to get to know the posters here... this is NOT meant as an attack, merely a question, posed with honest curiosity.

Let me tell you a true story... I was very young when I married because my father told me that if I didn't grab this one, I'd never find anyone else who would want me, which was a typical comment from him. The only abuse my husband didn't heap on me was physical, although the types of abuse in bed, were, I guess, physical as well as mental. He was in the military and when we were engaged, he was secretly living with another woman while picking up his mail on base and pretending to live there. He gave me a very nice wedding present:
Gonorrhea for a virgin bride.
I stayed for 12 long, miserable years because I was a good Catholic girl. He, on the other hand, was happy as a clam. He had me for a slave, sexual and otherwise, ignored the kids he claimed to love, had many women on the side (and if I showed ANY sign of suspicion, he told me it would be MY fault if he was fooling around because twice a day, EVERY DAY, for at least an hour at a time, whether I was sick or well, wasn't "enough" for his manhood). If I did 10 loads of laundry in a day, folded and put away, he berated me for not wiping down the washer and dryer when I was done! If he didn't make me cry at least once a day, he didn't feel his day was complete (he actually TOLD me this!) I bore him two children (both very difficult pregnancies and literally almost bled to death with the second... and was told by my doc that a third pregnancy would most certainly kill me) but HE wanted more children, so he said "In a couple of years, you'll forget (!?!) how bad it was and we can try again...."
After 12 years, I had given all I had to give. My daily (nay, hourly!) goal for those 12 years had been to find a way to make him happy. I had finally tired of the Sysiphusian task. The only thing I got in return for my trying to achieve that goal was a roof over my head and all the abuse I could take. We sat the kids (6 and 10) down to tell them and the first words out his mouth were: "Mommy's leaving us because she doesn't love us anymore". I moved out with a female college chum and he told everyone I was leaving him because I was a lesbian. There are SO many more details I could give, but I think you get my point. I did everything I possibly could to please him and NOTHING I did was ever good enough.

My point is not to share a sob story, but to ask you, flydye, what fault would you have found with me had I written to ask Amy for advice on how (or IF) I should save the marriage?

And, don't you think after the story of my first marriage (and peek into my childhood home), I would have a chip on MY shoulder concerning men? I don't... it merely made me the stronger woman I am today. My only real failing in that marriage was to stay as long as I did. But, Catholics don't believe in divorce and the only reason that I finally left was because I had renounced organized religion and still do.

And, yes, I agree that men are not portrayed well in the media, especially television, but that doesn't mean that an overreaction is called for, does it? I am old enough to remember watching "Father Knows Best" and always wondered why it was called that. It hasn't gotten any better, but I still think that when you comment on letters like this one, you should put down that lens of sensitivity you KNOW you look through, just READ the letter and give your two cents based on what the letter SAYS. He ADMITS that he feels he has caught her for good and so, feels like he needn't be romantic anymore. He is wise to write and I applaud him for that! Perhaps, flydye, instead of holding onto and cherishing your sensitivity, you should try taking a page from his book.

Finally (I think!), there is a difference between the "Last Fling" letter, the "6 Year Old Feet in His Face" letter and this one: In the first two, the LW is writing because spouse/almost GF is doing something he doesn't like and he wants advice. In THIS letter, he's writing for a different reason: He mentions not a word about HER doing anything wrong, but rather about what HE can do to make her happier. I only WISH my first husband would have written a letter like that. His would have been a lot different.

Thanks, Amy.
I feel pretty strongly that since the first two letter writers used as examples found fault with their SOs, it makes sense that we actually DO extrapolate as to "why" she is behaving as she is, not to denigrate him or his complaint or excuse her behavior, but to figure out what help she might need so that she stops the behavior she is exhibiting and they can start to behave like a true married couple with normal (sleeping in their own beds) children.
THIS LW has no complaint concerning his wife, so why should we try to find one for him?

The way males are portrayed in the media is just an excuse to slam a perfectly nice woman who apparently is doing just fine at taking care of her husband and their relationship. INHO.

Drat. *IMHO*

"So let's turn it on it's head. If it's the man's job to make the wife 'feel sexy' why isn't it her job to make him 'feel more romantic'?

So far I haven't heard a good answer why sauce for the goose isn't also good as sauce for the gander."

Because to suggest such a thing means you are capable of being diagnosed as "bitter" (surely the next DSM version will include this as an illness. surely), and therefore, the cognitive dissonance you observe need not be addressed.

Poor souls lost in bitterness must wander the craggy, salty wastelands of unanswered questions like yours, clutching Twain, Orwell, Mencken, and Bierce, while never knowing higher states of mind.

So much to respond to!

Since Ms. Alkon has put up some new stuff, I think this thread will die pretty soon, but let me have a last go at it.

I'm sure this man and his wife are perfectly nice people. The fact that I wonder if she wears flannel PJs and a facial mask when they are sitting watching television together, and maybe farts in bed is not outside the pale of relationship speculation, nor is it some attempt to portray her as a female Antichrist. A little persepctive, please!

Instead, I'm supposed to assume that since nothing is said about her, she's perfect. That is MUCH more realistic...

LS, you told me that throwing the 7 faults from the woman onto the Family Guy were to 'find a way to fix things'. Same here. Kudos to the wife for bringing the subject up. And suggesting that she may (not did, MAY) have had her own little contribution is not some damning slur.

***

On to catheyem:

Did you read the Booty Rest thread? I hope you did. That was a roller coaster.

You rather sarcastically asked what 'flaw' I'd find in you, blameless and long suffering.

YOU LET THAT HAPPEN TO YOU. There is your fault.

Now I can hear the hisses of indrawn breath, the open jaws, the 'no he didn't...'

Yes. I did. And that very same accusation was thrown at Family Guy. HE was too passive and let his wife do those things to him. So did you, catheyem.

But now you know better. If you had written a letter, I don't doubt that the advice from everyone (including myself) would have been to leave.

And my advice to the man was to confront her loudly and proudly (poor beleagured tired new mommie, desperately clutching her two children in bed). Because that had little to do with sex and a lot to do with bullying and contempt.

You should sympathize.

Yes, flydye, blame the victim. I was a VERY naive 19 year old when I married him. My father told me ALL OF MY LIFE that I was not worth loving. So, when a man shows me attention and says he loves me, it's MY fault that I believed him, married him, bore his children and FINALLY matured enough to leave him? And he CRIED when I told him I was leaving... how could I DO that to him??? He vowed to change and BEGGED me to stay. Two DAYS after I moved out, there was another woman in his bed. Pffft... yeah, my fault. mea f'n culpa.

I already stated that the fault on my end was staying so long. And I stated WHY I stayed so long, yet you can't understand (sympathize yourself, sir!) and you certainly can't empathize, which is an even stronger emotion than sympathy.

This letter is not ABOUT the other two letters. It is about... itself. Read it. Read Amy's original answer and subsequent comments in this thread. Read your own comments about "how men are portrayed in the media" (rationalization... all blondes are airheaded bimbos, redheads have fiery tempers... brunettes are conniving gold diggers [blondes are too stupid to connive]...) and tell me that your responses are based on the text of this actual letter and not on how YOU BELIEVE this male LW MUST be writing to Amy NOT for the reason he states, but because his wife is... oh, never mind. It's just not worth worrying about. Hopefully, he listened to Amy and not to you and Spartee.

I'm truly sorry you both have such issues. Perhaps time and maturity will help that. It didn't for my ex. He's on his fourth marriage and counting.... and few of his FIVE children want to be anywhere near him. I'm sure, if this LW is reading this, he got a good chuckle out of your adversarial stance toward his wife. Or maybe just shook his head and rolled his eyes.

blink blink

Wow.

That's an awful lot of drama for a hypothetical.

Read what I wrote.

Let me write it again:

"If a man is supposed to bend over backwards to make his wife feel sexy, why isn't the wife obligated to get him to feel romantic."

Then I committed heresy by suggesting that if he got comfortable in the relationship, maybe she did too.

How DO I sleep at night.

And your ex is a scumbag and a user and your father isn't much better.

"LS, you told me that throwing the 7 faults from the woman onto the Family Guy were to 'find a way to fix things'. Same here."

Really, flydye? Explain to me how that would go. "Hey, LW, why don't you go ask your wife why she wears her flannels and farts in bed? Make sure to say, 'It's not about me being unromantic. It's about YOU not making me FEEL romantic!"

I don't see that turning out well. LW isn't saying she is doing anything that is causing him to act less romantic. He says he loves her and believes he is simply responding to the fact that the thrill of the chase is over, which is insightful and honest.

Of course, he could turn that around on her too. He could say, "You really need to make me chase you a little more. Stop being so available. Play hard to get. Make me WANT to be more romantic!"

But is this good advice? No. I don't think we should suggest to LWs who are fully taking responsibility for their problem that they should look for someone else to "blame." This is where we should want more LWs to be - accountable and willing to take action to make their own lives and relationships better.

It's entirely different when they write in complaining about someone else. Often, then, we will ask them to examine their own accountability, in hopes that this might get them to the same proactive and accountable place, rather than the "victim" place.

Cathyem, very sorry to hear what a tough marriage you had, but so happy you found the courage to leave and build a new life.

Btw, I was thinking about that old thread, and trying to imagine it totally reversed, and how that might effect the female response.

Let's say the husband had been the SAH parent, putting the kids in the bed at night, and the wife wrote in complaining that they rarely have sex, and she wasn't sure she could take it anymore."

My belief is that you'd largely see the same female response. A certain percent would empathize with the husband, as a full-time caregiver. They'd tell the wife she isn't appreciating what a tough job it is and speculate why he is having a hard time moving the kids out of the bed.

Furthermore, they'd probably also accuse her of not realizing how fortunate she is to have such a good dad for a husband because this would impress most women - that a man was so deeply bonded and attached with his children, even if the "family bed" concept was extreme.

There would be the exact same speculation about whether he was depressed or exhausted, and the same suggestions for "choreplay". Maybe she should take on more of the childrearing duties so he felt less tired for sex?

She'd probably get it far worse for considering dumping the marriage to have more sex. In this culture, we're harder on women than men for having a demanding sex drive. This would play even less well with women - that a MOTHER would be considering breaking up her family for more sex.

So, like I said, I don't think the responses in that thread were based on gender bias. They were coming from a pro-family stance.