Six months after filing or 42 days after the divorce is finalized, whichever is first.
Marriage is a holy sacrament, it lasts forever and any relationships outside it put your immortal soul in peril. So, Staszek, the answer is never. Donate now and we can arrange for your friend's marriage to have never existed.
I don't know anything at all firsthand (come to think of it, I've never really even had a bad breakup that I had to start dating after), but I don't think there's going to be any kind of rule for the divorcing person's end. From the prospective love-interest's end, I'd be pretty wary of anyone less than, say, eighteen months out of a marriage as probably still in the thrashing around painfully stage, but the divorcing person should do whatever they feel ready for whenever they do.
Whatever, I don't know how people work. But blah blah, you know what I'm going to say. Right out of a marriage? You're probably overly thrilled by how different the new partner is from your ex. I met Max six months after his wife left him. On our second date, he wept because I was so kind, so honest, so thoughtful. Two months later, he told me he loved me. After a few months, I never heard that again. A couple of years passed before he realized he couldn't stand me. Nothing had come up; he just came to the awareness that he really wanted to be with someone more like the ex.
I think people have the right, and should have the right to date, say they love people, whatever they want to do. I just think love has little to do with whether you can stand being with someone or not, because it's pretty situational, and divorce is part of that situation.
I don't own a divorce either, but my gut says, it doesn't matter. I'd have to think that for over half of divorces, at least one of the parties has something going on ex ante anyway. If the divorcee in question was honest enough not to do that, I don't see why he or she shouldn't get to date people ex post. I can't imagine shaming someone for going on dates too soon after a divorce. A death is different.
Take the number of years the marriage lasted, divide by two, and add seven. That's how long.
Seven years. Were you puzzled by the quantity or the fact I neglected to specify a unit?
"Expect" is a weird word to use. If you mean it in the sense of "How long do other people expect you to wait?" my observation is that the degree of social disapproval seems to be linked to:
- whether you're still living with the ex
- whether you are publicly perceived to be the "victim," or the "victimizer," or if it was "mutual"
- how long it's been since the news became public
- if there are kids involved
But if you mean it in the sense of "When do you think I'll be ready?" my observation is: Six months to four years, depending on how far you were out the door emotionally before the marriage actually ended.
"Lesson learned" is two L words. The answer to "how long?" should be "never."
I am become Emerson, destroyer of worlds.
The quantity seemed large given the implicit unit.
I'd be rather suspicious of the L word from anyone who is right out of a divorce unless the rebound relationship has lasted quite some time. Or to use AWB's example - six months out, two months after dating - Oh shit, this isn't going well. Two years out, a year and a half of dating, ok.
13: And yet this is Standpipe's blog.
One of us has an exceedingly fine mind.
This is the ultimate Emerson bait, isn't it?
John Edwards is ready to find love again, so I think that should give people in this situation grounds for hope.
Also, keep in mind that anyone who has been married before has, at some point, not been able to imagine wanting something else. This person is not going to listen to your advice about whether it's reasonable to fall in love right after splitting up.
The quantity of my unit (an appliance appertaining to the technique of sex) is large, but it's never merely implicit.
Also, keep in mind that anyone who has been married before has, at some point, not been able to imagine wanting something else
Now who's being naïve?
Also, keep in mind that anyone who has been married before has, at some point, not been able to imagine wanting something else.
I'm lost in the pronouns here. Rephrase, if you would? It looks interesting, but I'm not following it.
Also, keep in mind that anyone who has been married before has, at some point, not been able to imagine wanting something else.
I'm not sure if it's "able to", "imagine", or "wanting" that is somehow being used in a sense I don't agree with.
I suppose I should make the unit explicit as a rule.
I am NAWB, but isn't she saying that those who have made the marriage vow have, at one point in their life, been utterly convinced that they are mated for life?
(I disagree with this premise for many, but I think that's what she's saying.)
Is your friend asking for reasons of his own personal mental health or for reasons of avoiding a public shaming? It sounds like the former, right?
A good friend of mine, who was something of a skirt chaser and not a very good husband, it seems, went into therapy after his divorce and the therapist told him not even to date for a year -- basically so that he could sort out his own shit without becoming a rampaging monster of transference, etc., onto some other poor person.
Oh wait, suddenly it sort of makes sense. I think I just had one of those gestalt rabbit/duck switches with AWB's sentence.
But you're totally allowed to sleep around after a divorce, right?
Some people are more likely than others to look at someone and say, "Ah yes! This is what I want! This is what I will always want!" Other people don't think that way. The former are more likely to get married, more likely to get remarried after a divorce. The latter are less likely to do so.
I'm not saying the latter are correct, though I'm one of them. I often envy people who think that way about people.
But it's a spectrum disorder, I guess. Some think everyone they meet is potentially "the one," some get convinced that marriage might be OK, and some never do. The happiest married people I know are the second kind, the ones who were skeptical, but for whom it worked out.
Addendum: Of the divorced people I've known well enough to to know this about, almost none (5-8%?) waited even the six months. But they were split in terms of how much self-awareness they had. Lots of people start dating again without expecting it to be serious, and while others are just in that "Crazy Time" flailing around that LB mentions.
A very few, in my observation, are wise enough to understand that even if they think they're totally fine and not rebounding at all, no sirree, definitely emotionally surefooted and able to assess the new relationship accurately...it might still not be a good time for heartfelt declarations.
As AWB notes, people who date right out of a divorce fall in love immediately. Then fall right the hell back out of love because your judgment is totally fucked in that situation. Of course, everybody is different so no answer is "right", but my general yardstick is that you should spend at least six months to a year being single for your own protection, even as much as it sucks.
The happiest married people I know are the second kind, the ones who were skeptical, but for whom it worked out.
You never know exactly who you are getting until she flies in from overseas, so some skepticism is useful.
But you're totally allowed to sleep around after a divorce, right?
Helps accelerate the post-divorce weight loss, at least.
This comes out of a recent conversation with a friend who, at 37, is, for the first time in her life, in love. She was asking me if she was being annoying about it (FB status updates or whatever). Seriously, skeptical people who lose their skepticism don't bother me in the least. They're really inspiring. I'm genuinely happy for her.
I'm just wary of the breakup followed by OMG I'm *really* in love this time! thing. A total lack of skepticism after a divorce seems like a sign of transference.
I am told, by the bitter, that you need to wait half the length of the defunct marriage. This would contradict some evidence unless I assume that the happily rapidly remarried were emotionally out of their first marriage long before their spouse was... well, that would explain why the spouse is still bitter.
30: Heh, I like "spectrum disorder." Never again may seem to strong to some, not long enough to others. All I can say is that shortly after your spouse files and while you are still living in the house your spouse pays for is, objectively, tacky.
All I can say is that shortly after your spouse files and while you are still living in the house your spouse pays for is, objectively, tacky.
Especially if you're still walking around naked.
Not even necessarily married. Any serious enough long term relationship is going to create the same problems regardless of the paperwork.
Yeah, long-term relationships replace a big chunk of "you" with a "we", and it honestly takes a good stretch of time by yourself to figure out who you are again. Because you aren't the same person you were before you went in, and you aren't the same person you'll be when you drop all the parts of your ex that you're still carrying around.
I am having a hard time commenting about this without blowing other people's secrets, but I am really suspicious of all that "wait a year, half the time of your relationship, etc" stuff. From what I can see, success in love is pretty much random, and many of the people that I see in the most stable and lovely relationships are those that I would not necessarily qualify as completely stable/emotionally perfect sort of people.
you need to wait half the length of the defunct marriage.
That's the conventional wisdom, I think. Not that you have to wait that long to date at all, but that it's probably going to take you that long to become truly serious about any next person.
But yeah, divorce sex is pretty hot. We each lost about 15 pounds that first year.
Now I'm going to sleep, in case I have to teach in the morning.
Conventional wisdom is bollocks. Waiting 7 years before you get serious after a 14 year marriage (as in the case of a close family member) is ridiculous.
40 gets it completely right. Particularly long-term relationships replace a big chunk of "you" with a "we".
Wait for the expiration of the warranty on any car you purchased jointly.
Waiting half the length of the marriage as the "conventional wisdom" seems nuts to me. When, a couple of years ago, all the folks I know who got married in their 20s got divorced, they were coming out of 8/9/10-year marriages. 35yos are supposed to wait until they're 40 to date again?
success in love is pretty much random
And failure, not to put too fine a point on it. Anyway, I've seen people do the rebound relationship and end up happy, people made permanently undateable by divorce, and lots of other in-between situations. There's no rule. Where is Will when we need him?
IANAD, obvs., but I did cohabitate with BOGF for 4-5 years before we broke up. I met AB 6 weeks after I moved out, and was thoroughly in love almost immediately (I don't know when I first used the word in earnest, but surely within 2 months of our first date).
Now, I had never crossed AWB's Rubicon, thinking that I was eternally linked to BOGF, but still, I wasn't looking for a permanent relationship either (indeed, I was looking forward to playing the field a bit). Point being, I think that at least dating is entirely natural and healthy for many/most people coming out of a marriage, and you can't help it if you find the right person. I certainly think that avoiding the right person because it's the "wrong time"* is stupid.
Indeed, one of the reasons my greatest regret is one is that we hooked up soon after my breakup with HS GF (with whom I was convinced I was eternally linked), and so I was all convinced that I shouldn't be looking for anything serious, and I was kind of a prick about it ("This is just a meaningless fling, right?" Which she agreed with, but was still prickish).
* for dubiously-constructed values of "wrong time", such as "my therapist told me it's too soon" or "Standpipe's formula says I have to wait." Awaiting trial for manslaughter probably qualifies as a legitimately wrong time for starting a serious relationship.
I wasn't endorsing the conventional wisdom.
I do agree with 40. But I don't think "a good chunk of time" is the same for all people, and I certainly don't think it needs to be half the length of the marriage.
people made permanently undateable by divorce
[Raises hand]
Half the length plus seven.
Last thing: Stanley -- your friend isn't going to listen to you either way. It will work out, or it won't, or s/he'll pursue it, or not, but there's just about nothing anyone can say to anyone. I've been on both sides of that conversation way too many times to think it's useful to have at all.
49 I would have been completely incapable of being even a decent casual boyfriend immediately after the breakup of my ten year relationship. It took me years before I was capable of considering serious relationships.
...you aren't the same person you'll be when you drop all the parts of your ex that you're still carrying around.
Apo, murdering a spouse is not divorce.
Can we just file this under people are different? Some people are seriously just made to be in relationships. Others, not so much.
I'm beginning to imagine Standpipe leaning back in a leather-upholstered chair, smoking a pipe.
I was going to tell you the timing, L-word, and age-differential details of my current rebound relationship, but you'd all just reply "trainwreck waiting to happen." Whatever.
Standpipe really has this nailed. Eight and a quarter years out, that's all he has nailed, but a rule's a rule.
C'mon, man, it's not like you can say that and then not tell us.
60: oh gosh Hovercraft, you can't listen to these people on these sorts of things.
I do think we should keep clear on the difference between how long before dating at all, and how long before getting truly serious, as in long-term potential serious.
But you never know what might turn serious! I don't think it's possible!
(Why do I feel strongly about this? I have no idea.)
Well, the norms are different for the polyamorous. We're expected to get our next serious relationship lined up before ditching the current one.
65.1: It's come to my attention that lots of people date without any intention of it becoming serious.
||
In memory of the old days of Unfogged, it seems worth noting that I just turned on my TV to find that Jessica Biel is on Letterman and, for no reason that I can discern, covered in feathers. As is Letterman.
|>
Oh, I am sure that is the case. But, you know, sometimes it does turn serious, despite your intentions. And I'm sure some people manage to actually keep it all light and fluff, as well.
Polyamory just sounds exhausting, but maybe that makes it the perfect prelude to the relationship-free life. Where are B and Emerson when we need them?
Half the length? For a two or three year marriage maybe. But after 27,* for example? That's way out beyond any convention of any kind. Maybe 2 or 3 after 27, although even that might be longish.
* No, I'm not revealing anything here. Just speaking hypothetically.
I think you are completely right, Paren.
I do actually own a divorce. I've also had the experience of being the rebounding party (rebound-er?) of the type described by AWB. This was 3 months out of a 6 year marriage. I didn't use the 'L' word out loud, but it was there inside my head. Anecdotal evidence! I've since settled into being mostly undateable.
Half the length of the average length of PIV intercourse during the portion of the marriage bracketed by times a and b where those times represent the moments at which the sex was really good and you shared a toaster with the standard exceptions made for same sex marriage or those who don't like toast, plus seven years.
73: I've since settled into being mostly undateable.
Purging your radioactive isotopes will do that for you.
Sorry that should be the moment at which sex first became really good and/or the first piece of toast was produced from the shared toaster and the moment at which the sex became ungood or the toaster ceased to be regarded as community property, respectively. In the circumstance in which a postdates the date of separation the agreement is void and you should find somebody who isn't awful already.
75: better no life than merely half of one.
69: I have noticed these things also.
When, a couple of years ago, all the folks I know who got married in their 20s got divorced, they were coming out of 8/9/10-year marriages. 35yos are supposed to wait until they're 40 to date again?
Bless you, oudemia.
But how do you apply the formula in 74 if the sex was never any good?
Don't listen to her, Josh. Wait till you're 40. Otherwise you're dooooooooooooomed.
75: No rings to count, either.
or the toaster ceased to be regarded as community property
Now that's a hell of a moment, innit? When you realize that you're mentally noting that the tv is actually yours, as is the CD player, while the speakers are not yours (drat), and that beautiful ceramic vase which you quite like and are very used to is actually not yours either (shit, can I bargain for that? he can have the capuccino maker) and so on.
78: Ok! I'm having a hard time reading you in this conversation, sorry to be so ... whatever I am being.
But how do you apply the formula in 74 if the sex was never any good?
Half the length of the average length of PIV intercourse
sorry to be so ... whatever I am being
High on Percodan?
In that case you amortize the sex with toast over a period not to exceed standard parameters.
But how do you apply the formula in 74 if the sex was never any good?
Half of infinity is, let's see...
76.last to 80.
Possessions are fleeting. Toasters are inexpensive. Ceramic is made of dirt.
Speakers are obviously important, and transcend mere possessions, but it's worth remembering that the music industry is colluding to keep you from appreciating them with their sordid, lowest-common-denominator compressor presets.
I was totally peeping some waveforms earlier today and shit like that.
81: Yeah, this is kind of a weird thread to be reading at this point in my life. I had this conversation with a friend a few months ago (not because I was actively contemplating dating at the time, but because I knew at some point I would be), and she was firmly in the "half the length of the previous relationship" camp. Her particular take on it actually took a bit of a toll on our friendship, to be honest.
84: It's not you. I'm being intentionally noncommittal.
91: Indeed. I think this is the sort of thing where, as a friend, you should attempt to simply listen and help process rather than impose a certain ideal.
91: I always took the "half the length of the relationship" to be an argument in favor of self-protection. Half the length of the relationship so that you might cocoon yourself away from the vampires, twits and harpies that skulk through the night until you can sprout beautiful wings of self-aware singleness.
she was firmly in the "half the length of the previous relationship" camp.
Like, she thought anything less would be immoral? or just unwise? How can you be firmly in that camp about something so obviously variable? What's, like, wrong with people?
What's, like, wrong with people?
Other people, I read somewhere.
68: Those were snowflakes, after she successfully said the word "Squall" after much prompting.
I'ma integrate you with respect to your variable.
How about just a 'don't be a selfish dick' rule: if you're still a basket case and/or pining after the ex, don't date unless it's crystal clear that it's just fun and games therapy.
How about just a 'don't be a selfish dick' rule
Here we go again...
"I differentiate you", he said in a derivative comment of pointless function.
For all the flustered denials about any rules for a serious relationship post-long-term breakup, I do note that the mineshaft felt pretty strongly about age differentials. Didn't it?
Standpipe wants to know.
Standpipe wants to know NOTHING!
Like, she thought anything less would be immoral? or just unwise?
"[U]nwise" merely gestures at her opinion on the matter. When I suggested that perhaps, just *perhaps*, my situation might be different from others she was aware of, she totally blew me off.
I do note that the mineshaft felt pretty strongly about age differentials. Didn't it?
Some elements did, while other elements emphatically didn't.
Carbon and strontium, for example, were all for them.
Well, your half life is relevant here.
105: Ah. I'm not sure I ever read the thread from which the no-doubt half-joking 1/2+7 rule came.
||
Wow. This movie, Chop Suey by Bruce Weber, is a real trip for this midwesterner. At first I was like many of the IMDB reviewers put off by all the male nudes, but after a while I decided it wasn't entirely a homoerotic sensibility (not that there is anything wrong etc), but just a real appreciation of male beauty. Jesus, these guys make Chet Baker and Chris Isaak look ugly. But Weber makes his living photographing male models, after all. Goddamn, they were beautiful men.
But the NYC hardcore fashion world has an intensity and enthusiasm that is alien. A style that...they work and play very very hardm, but still seem shallow. Diana Vreeland said that moving from London back to New York meant she couldn't read anymore. The movie is recommended.
I, the serendipity thing, have come across an opportunity to study engage 20th century art photography. Dorothea Lange, the Westons, Eisenstadt, Arbus, name it. Mostly b & w. So far, it feels like opportunities for personal expression are more limited or more subtle than with painting. Smaller palette.
|>
I'm not sure I ever read the thread from which the no-doubt half-joking 1/2+7 rule came.
See, now this is a fine mind.
94 to 99.
I'm not sure I ever read the thread from which the no-doubt half-joking 1/2+7 rule came.
This rule of thumb wasn't heard by everyone at some point in their college or high school years?
Address me, undress me, Loch Ness me.
AWB had it right at 6.
As far as relationships go, from a very early age I have felt that the gap between emotions, affects, and relationships and the language we use to express, understand, or explain them is pretty much unbridgeable. That is not to say that relationships or communication are impossible, but that the words aren't doing the work we think they are doing. Nor is it saying that the words can't be fun or pretty, but I have felt manipulative much more often than sincere or intimate.
I am still carrying a torch from forty years ago, and think about her every day. My partners and I since then have really tried without success, although there have been great fun and companionship. To me, it is like your first great drug high, you get imprinted with an idealization that can't be removed. Brain paths have been permanently burned, receptors fused.
Youth is wasted on the young.
I don't think I am at all unique, or even unusual. I do believe most people in 2nd or later pairings simply lie.
We have to, out of kindness and need.
Apo, murdering a spouse is not divorce.
It's cheaper and less complicated, for one.
Everything's opposite in France.
I liked that film for a while, but not up to the end or after. Too elaborate, it got tiresome.
Since my divorce, I've grown increasingly in love with McManus. I'm being semi-sincere.
That definitely means it's too soon, Halford.
7: And after a death? I own a widowhood at 39 and now, almost two years after he died, my stand on this changes wildly. I am for example aware that I would have left him if he had not died. So you know, not living in the past or anything... Do you lot have any observation as to societal expectations on widows and dating? Is it different?
Ceramic is made of dirt.
But what if I am fond of a jug?
124: As well as not having been divorced, I haven't been widowed. But I saw a good friend date (and listened to him bitch about dating) for ten years after his wife died, so I at least have poorly supported thoughts. Widower dating looked easier and less fraught than divorced dating -- if I was going to oversimplify, for my widowed friend, marriage and his wife hadn't done anything bad to him, cancer did something bad to him by taking his wife away. So he had fairly uncomplicatedly positive feelings about a new relationship, in a way that people coming out of the breakup of a marriage don't, which made stuff easier. (Except that as a forty/fifty-something, the women he was dating were all divorced, and it drove him nuts how suspicious and wary they all seemed. Then, ten years after his first wife died, he found a nice widow and married her. And then promptly died of lung cancer. It's a funny world.)
But that's coming out of a happy marriage. You sound like your dynamic was different, so take this for what it's worth, which isn't much.
Advice on this sort of subject is never any good, which is just as well, because it's never taken.
And then promptly died of lung cancer. It's a funny world.
Funny peculiar or funny Christ that's depressing?
126. Thank you. You know, it is weird how rare it is for me to hear anything at all about this. In my age bracket/social group the situation me and my kid is in is very much out of the norm. We are in Europe where there is much less sharing and support grouping, and also we are unusually young for this. I recognise what you say about your friend. There are no regrets and no lingering arguments. There is grief and occasional sadness and general anger towards cancer but also a strong and positive desire to LIVE. The dating thing is still odd though, I feel that people regard me as "tragic" and "brave" and you know the keeper of his memory as well his things, our house, his legacy of work.
I adopt Jackmormon's and Parenthetical's comments.
Witt alluded to an important component. A lot of people have left a marriage long before they separated. (This issue can be really difficult for the person who wasnt aware that their partner was long gone.)
Widows and the recently separated should date immediately. The L word is a bit much. (unless we mean lust)
But, date away. Meet lots of people. Enjoy it.
Life is too short.
I feel for you, raster. That must be very difficult. The desire to move on pressed against people's desire (prob including your kids) for you to be the custodian of his memory.
But, life is too short not to be happy. Screw anyone who thinks you shouldnt date. Ok, so maybe a poor choice of words...
No, that is a fine choice of words. Too short indeed.
It's not so much the kid, she is fine, in fact she shut me up the other day with a "stop talking about dead people". 5 year olds are awesome. I think I just don't have any idea how I am supposed to play this one.
Play it however you want to play it.
I think kids want their parents to be happy. Other people will gossip occassionally, but most people dont have the attention span to think about you for too long.
I see it in divorce cases all the time. People are so worried about what other people are saying about them, but, it is important to remember that you just dont matter to other people for very long.
They are usually too worried about whether other people can see THEIR faults and failings.
So few people are widowed before they're old these days that I'm sure it throws people. I wonder if bringing this up on first dates explicitly is a good or a terrible idea: ("I know this must seem weird for you; my husband's death is something I'm sad about, but it happened a couple of years ago -- I have happy memories of the marriage, and sad memories of his death, and it's not something that's going to get in the way of my moving forward. Don't worry about me on those grounds." I mean, that's awkward, but something along those lines might be useful to clear the air.)
I don't have personal experience of this either, but of the two people I know who were widowed in early middle age, one was, and remains, happily remarried within three years, so he must have been open to the idea of dating sooner than that. His kid, now adult, has always been totally cool with her step-mother, and the outcome could have been a lot worse. Nobody was funny about it.
The other person was still single after several years when I largely lost touch. I don't know what her dating life was like, but she had a hard row to hoe as she had a big family to raise (both partners had brought kids to the marriage).
I think you should do what seems right at the time. You won't be helping anybody by moping, and I'm sure from your posts that you're not. I suspect that the time to start dating is when you start asking the question.
Won't the veil and the long black dress tip them off?
I think after two years she should be in half-mourning by now, right? Mostly black, but touches of white and violet to cheer things up a little.
It has been two years!??!?!
She needs to be dating ASAP!
I actually tell EVERYONE I meet as soon as I can. Yes, it is awkward but with a small kid on hand (think playground situation) sooner or later someone asks something about her dad, why she is tri-lingual, how long we have lived here and why I came etc. And then I have to tell and then the asker feels awkward and guilty for asking and just terrible. It is better to get it over with immediately.
And yes black and violet all they way - I would put a smiley here if it was, you know, allowed...
That sounds like the right way to handle it. But I was wondering about whether going a step further on dates might make sense, along the lines of "I bet my being a widow is weird for you, and you're worried that I'm on some level insane with grief and going to flip out. As it turns out, no -- don't worry about me." That might be one of those attempts to defuse awkwardness that just makes it worse, though, I'm really not sure.
tri-lingual? Cool.
I'm still working on getting my child to have passable English.
Yeah, generations of cross Europe+ mobility as driven by pogroms, colonialism, war, jazz, the dot-com boom and well, love.
145:
Sounds like a good start to a book.
I'm having a hard time imagining why an answer to the question "why is she tri-lingual?" would necessarily involve "I'm a widow; her father died a few years ago", but I suppose it doesn't much matter.
145: I'm sure that does work, but I'm hoping Montessori does it with less pain.
I feel that people regard me as "tragic" and "brave" and you know the keeper of his memory as well his things, our house, his legacy of work.
This seems like the worst part -- feeling like you've been put in a box. I can see, sort of, where LB's suggestions would serve to defuse that. But, personally, I would really resent having to explicitly advise every new date that I am neither tragic and broken nor mad with grief. My own approach would be to more or less write off anyone who felt compelled to stick me in a box like that without taking the initiative themselves to show the sort of interest and ask the kind of questions that would reveal whether I was tragic or mad. But then, my own approach has also been to go Emerson, so YMMV.
If you'd read the Black Book of Jazz, Will, you'd already know about the terrible price that jazz exacted on Europe.
In fairness, Di really should be advising men that she is tragic, broken, and totally mad.
totally mad.
"Mad, I tell you! Mad, mad!" Through her sinuses with her teeth clenched.
152:
that is actually a quote from her last appellate argument.
151: "This is the shrunken head of the last guy who tried to buy me a drink while wearing Axe Body Spray."
151: Honestly, this seems to be the default assumption and is probably a big part of why I stopped bothering with dating.
152: Indeed. The mp3 is available on the 7th Circuit's website. Judge Posner seemed a bit taken aback, but Easterbrook grinned broadly.
I am still kind of amused, in a depressed sort of way, that this is a problem for people. I can't figure out how people get into one long term relationship let alone get out of one and into another in any kind of time frame that would be considered too soon.
Di, I totally hear you. I don't think, it is all that different. The people who are cool, tend to be old friends and while that route has landed me a friends with benefits, it's not really a great dating pool.
157: It's amazing how much of a difference being friendly and outgoing makes. Back when I was in theory attempting to date, I simply didn't end up speaking to new people hardly ever -- without new acquaintances, who are you going to go out with. The kind of cheerfully outgoing person who makes new friends everywhere they go just has infinitely more possible dating targets.
159: See also: single parenting with no weekends off.
It's amazing how much of a difference being friendly and outgoing makes.
So if you don't have throngs of eager pursuers, it's because you aren't friendly and outgoing enough. Simple!
160: That sounds especially hard. Even without regard to dating. As much as you love the little munchkins, some "me" time is so necessary to recharge.
160:
That is one of the few advantages divorce has over death.
159/157:
If you want to meet new people, you have to get involved in new activities (cf: Unfogged/Ultimate/Steam Room/Master's swimming/Running groups/Volunteer work/ etc)
So if you don't have throngs of eager pursuers, it's because you aren't friendly and outgoing enough. Simple!
I had a more charitable reading of LB's comment, oddly enough.
164: I wasn't intending to be uncharitable.
So if you don't have throngs of eager pursuers, it's because you aren't... wearing a dirndl often enough.
Huh. I don't know if anyone else remembers a conversation about comments showing up out of order, but it definitely just happened -- I saw 161 followed immediately by what is now 164, and then clicked again and 162 and 163 appeared inbetween.
Then the relative charity of our interpretations must remain a mystery.
it's because you aren't... wearing a dirndl often enough
Unfortunately I don't think I have the build to really pull that off, not to mention the chest hair might be kind of off putting.
Further to 159: I think this also has a lot to do with projecting your own feelings out on the world at large. In general I hate unnecessary conversation and don't like to have my space intruded upon. My natural default is to assume that others will appreciate my tactfulness in refraining from pestering them. (IRL, obviously -- on blogs it's a bit different.)
After two decades of being paid to do jobs that require outgoingness, I am vastly more comfortable with initiating, joking, prodding, herding, joshing, shepherding, asserting, and otherwise cheerfully getting other people to go/say/be where I want them to be.
While these skills are immensely useful, and I'm particularly grateful to have had the experience of many different social and cultural contexts, the fact is that in my private life I remain a person who defaults to thinking that the person at the subway seat/coffee table next to me would appreciate the respectfulness and courtesy of not being intruded upon.
I am now seized by a desire to google "hairy chest dirndl". Luckily, I'm at work, which makes that unlikely.
the fact is that in my private life I remain a person who defaults to thinking that the person at the subway seat/coffee table next to me would appreciate the respectfulness and courtesy of not being intruded upon
This I can definitely relate to.
In general I hate unnecessary conversation and don't like to have my space intruded upon.
Our son (he's three) is really very into starting conversations with random strangers. I kind of enjoy the surreal aspect of him insisting that strangers hear his story.
174: One of my good friends now is a guy Rory "picked up" on the train at about that age. They had exchanged friendly smiles, so she naturally did not hesitate to climb up on his lap and ask to play with his computer.
half the length of the defunct marriage
But how do you know exactly when it's going to go defunct? Oh, wait, half the length after it goes defunct? Sounds like a drag.
176: It helps to be the person who checked out of the marriage first.
But how do you know exactly when it's going to go defunct?
Two weeks after he hires the unqualified film maker to document his campaign.
At the pool, my daughter often swims up to people we dont know and hug on them.
This is not always a bad thing.
It helps to be the person who checked out of the marriage first.
Not in my experience.
Two weeks after he hires the unqualified film maker to document his campaign.
I was surprised but not shocked by the Edwards affair news when it first emerged, but all of the details about how he took Rielle Hunter traveling with him on the campaign for several months, on the campaign's dollar, while expecting his campaign staff to stay quiet about it, actually managed to shock and appall me.
Having an affair while running for President is one thing, but doing so in such a stupid, weird, corrupt, and delusional way is just pathological.
180: Is "least self-aware" more accurate in your experience?
181: Oh, that makes perfect sense to me if you figure the film-makering thing got started before the actual affair. She starts doing her film-maker thing, and they get inappropriately close, and they make arrangements for her to travel with the campaign to do the documentary before they actually start fucking (and while he's still maintaining plausible deniability in his own head about where the relationship is going). Then, once the arrangements are made, the actual affair starts, and he convinces himself that it would look shiftier to get rid of her than to stick with the original plan.
I haven't read the book, so I'm not sure this is compatible with the facts, but it seems like a very ordinary way to mess up to me.
182: I think maybe "most desirous of finding replacement model." That immediate post-divorce period seems to provide a fair bit of opportunity -- a freshly divorced man or woman is like chum in the dating shark tank. Perhaps because people really like to fix other people and the freshly divorced look prime for the fixing? So what CJB should do to improve his or her potential dating pool, I think, is get a divorce. Or at least break off a long-term relationship. Unless the dirndl thing works out.
I agree with LB. Plus, you add in the crazy factor that Hunter is telling him that if he breaks it off, she will tell everyone.
I've represented men who continued on with affairs for several years bc of threats of disclosure.
"most desirous of finding replacement model."
Tom-A-to, Tom-a-to
If only all blackmailers could be bought off with a good rogering.
184:
Or. for four easy installments of $19.95, he could get my valuable newsletter documented all the recent divorce filings.
I occasionally worry about how easy I find it to empathize with people who do fucked up, self destructive things. There's an alternate universe where I'm just a tiny bit more adventurous, and things have gone very badly.
And if you must marry, make sure she is old -
A Troop-Sergeant's widow's the nicest, I'm told -
For beauty won't help if your rations is cold,
Nor love ain't enough for a soldier.
My sense of the timeline was that the inappropriate stuff had sort of begun before she started filming or traveling with the campaign, that the other staffers weren't even sure where this idea of a videographer had come from. I'm not willing to reread that article to check my facts, though.
On a completely different note, no more masturbating to Alexander McQueen. Very sad.
188: Like looking for an apartment by reading the obituaries?
Plus, you add in the crazy factor that Hunter is telling him that if he breaks it off, she will tell everyone.
Really? I didn't read that, or if I did, I'd forgotten it. But of course it would be a threat, implicit or explicit. Stupid, stupid Edwards.
This is pretty topical for me, since I'm at 0.5*T_relationship and just beginning to think seriously about dating. My extreme lack of experience is making me nervous, but I'm finding that computer mediated interaction makes showing scars easier, and getting that out of the way early is good. There's a person I'm probably going to ask out soon, which should be interesting since I have had all of 4 first dates ever. One just wouldn't shut up about Ska, one was a lesbian playing me for free food and booze (seriously! WTF? And she taunted me later by showing me how hot her new girlfriend was!), one turned into the best sex I ever had, and one I married.
Me an' thy muther, Sammy, 'as bean a-talkin' o' thee;
Thou's bean talkin' to muther, an' she bean a tellin' it me.
Thou'll not marry for munny -thou's sweet upo' parson's lass -
Noa -thou'll marry fur luvv -an' we boath on us thinks tha an ass.
Seeaed her todaay goa by -Saaint's-daay -they was ringing the bells.
She's a beauty thou thinks -an' soa is scoors o' gells,
Them as 'as munny an' all -wot's a beauty? -the flower as blaws.
But proputty, proputty sticks, an' proputty, proputty graws.
Do'ant be stunt: taak time: I knaws what maakes tha sa mad.
Warn't I craazed fur the lasses mysen when I wur a lad?
But I knawed a Quaaker feller as often 'as towd ma this:
"Doant thou marry for munny, but goa wheer munny is!"
An' I went wheer munny war: an' thy muther coom to 'and,
Wi' lots o' munny laaid by, an' a nicetish bit o' land.
Maaybe she warn't a beauty: -I niver giv it a thowt -
But warn't she as good to cuddle an' kiss as a lass as 'ant nowt?
186: Maybe. Although I think there's a construction in which "desirous of finding a replacement model stat" and "self-aware" are compatible. For example, if you are self-aware enough to recognize that you are wholly incapable of taking care of yourself and being alone, a quickie replacement is a smart enough move. Possibly a problem if the replacement is self-aware.
194: Do we need to call Emerson to stage an intervention?
togolosh:
That sounds like 4 great first dates!
25 percent hot sex!
25 percent marriage
50 percent great stories!
Bad dates create great stories.
196: True. But one hopes that the set of those self-aware enough to realize they cannot care for themselves yet too un-self-aware to figure out how to do so would be small.
199 should have included "excepting Californians" at some point.
I occasionally worry about how easy I find it to empathize with people who do fucked up, self destructive things.
Personally, I've done enough fucked up, self-destructive things that any other attitude seems hypocritical. We all fall in some way, at some point. Being understanding of everyone else's fuck ups makes it easier to give yourself a break when you eventually need it.
201 was me. I hope you guys can empathize with my failure to fill in the "Posted by:" field.
I treasure my self-righteous sanctimony far too much to do fucked-up self-destructive things. If I did them, I might have to develop empathy and stop scolding people.
198: Bad dates create great stories.
They do! I have a good friend who is basically interviewing for an LTR with an intensity that's impressive. Like 4 different dates in a week. She has some awesome stories. I believe I related the one about the guy who gave her kid a video game console that was loaded with porn. I know I shall never fail quite that badly at impressing a woman.
I know I shall never fail quite that badly at impressing a woman.
If you applied yourself....
206: If I knew what you looked like, I'd probably picture you scolding me every time I waste a bunch of water.
I leave the water running every day while I'm at work, just to spite Megan for her lack of empathy.
If you left the water running at work when you went home, you wouldn't even have to pay for the water.
Like most female Unfoggetarians, the easiest thing to do is to imagine Megan looking like Rachel Weisz.
Then I'd just confuse her with my mental picture of you.
214: Having never heard of Rachel Weisz, I just looked her up on Wikipedia, and holy hell, she's apparently shacked up with one of my college stoner buddies!
216: A mouthful of water is small potatoes, Will. You need to think bigger if you really want to draw Megan's ire.
Is that the origin of the saying "anything more than a mouthful is a waste"?
217: Darren Aronofsky is one of your college stoner buddies?
221: Tell him to tell her to not say 'no' when somebody wants to make the next sequel to The Mummy.
I wish she were a better actress. I'd feel more highminded then.
Essear, if you would indicate an email address for yourself, I'll divulge my secret identity to you privately (offer also available to other regular commenters -- at least to those who have not already made the not-terribly-difficult inference).
32: my general yardstick
Almost 200 comments have passed, and no one picked up the fruit. Tsk, tsk, tsk.
||
Semi-OT: Remember that guy I had the internet-arranged date with who was all "great, I'd like to see you again" and then broke off contact? Well, I did send him another message, to which he did not respond. And then he walked into the restaurant I was eating in this weekend an sat down in the booth adjacent to me so that he was facing me. And then he remembered he had to wash his hands and when he came back he sat down facing away from me. But he was all smiley when he arrived and departed. Jackass.
||>
223:Jut watched her the other day in Runaway Jury
She's good enough.
She's good enough.
The hardon bigotry of low expectations?
225.2: Men -- Can't live with 'em, can't... Well, just can't live with 'em.
offer also available to other regular commenters -- at least to those who have not already made the not-terribly-difficult inference)
I'm totally failing on this. Maybe I need to google. Or you can email me!
225: Sorry, Natilo! That seems awkward all around!
Meanwhile, my so-called friends have been urging my pointless crush to do [Silly Local Activist Valentine's Day Event] in order to find himself a date. Luckily, my pointless crush is too introverted and dorky (just like me!) to ever consider such a thing. But thanks anyway, so-called friends.
230: This is your opening! "Geez, are they nagging you to do [SLAVDE], too? We should just go have dinner or something to get them off our backs!"
Very recently (this year), I started dating someone who is a widower, about five years out. (I'm single, early 50s.) The topic came up rather easily the first time we met when he mentioned an adult daughter. He had a happy marriage. I don't know (haven't asked) if I'm the first person he's dated in the interim, but I get that impression.
So far it's been a world of difference from the last fellow I was spending time with, who was separated for quite a long time, divorce in the works, tons of fun, hott monkey sex, but a mess of conflicted emotions. I guess a mid-life-crisis guy.
In general, I guess I concur w/ LB in 126. And hope that Mr. New isn't put off by my wanting to take things slowly.
231: Perversely, that might actually work. Pointless crush is completely opposed to Valentine's Day and all that it stands for, but we have a meeting that day anyway...whose other attendees, I believe, will be leaving right after the meeting in order to celebrate Valentine's Day with their various others.
I must admit, though, that pointless crush is about twenty different kinds of unsuitable in terms of age, character, being-a-more-serious-anarchist-than-I, being probably destined for activist fame given a few more years, etc. etc.
231 is a great idea. Frowner, maybe you should try that!
225.2: Seriously sucks, Natilo. I at least would have accidentally dropped an open bottle of ketchup on his lap on my own way to the bathroom and back to the booth. You should not do that -- it's beneath your dignity -- but I as your hypothetical boothmate would have done it.
Or is that going too far?
234.2: You'd have to make it look like an accident, a trip and spill. Hot soup could be good. "Oh dear! I am so sorry! I am such a klutz!"
To the original post I offer my own anecdatum. My first wife and I separated (at her initiative) and saw other people while we were sorting out our own shit. I started what should have been a fling but ended up a doomed relationship. After six months of that, the wife and I called it quits. I resolved to wait about six weeks (until after Thanksgiving) to try online dating, although I did let myself get picked up at a party.
I met my second wife about five months later and there wasn't really any hesitation. We moved in together one year after that, got engaged promptly thereafter, and got married 21 months after first meeting. I wasn't the one who wanted to be single.
One woman I hung out with in between wives told me "divorced guys are a catch -- women know you're not afraid to commit." Obvs it's not true for all divorced guys; at a deeper level, divorce (and attendant therapy) made me much more sophisticated emotionally. At one point, my therapist asked me if I was emotionally retarded. Yes: my therapist is Rahm Emmanuel.
Most of this was recorded live-as-it-happens in the archives under my old pseud.
233: If he stares awkwardly at your shoes you're set!
That was my signature move in my extreme introverted dork phase.
196 seems pretty true for me. I became kind of hysterical about dating; then I met someone with whom it worked out. It might not have been pretty if she had taken more time to come along.
At one point, my therapist asked me if I was emotionally retarded.
Was this a rhetorical question or did your therapist not know?
Is that a joke or do you really not know?
Turtles all the way down from here.
Yes: my therapist is Rahm Emmanuel
You need to book more hours - keep him away from his part time other job.
240: It was as serious as my typical comment.
My therapist is on his honeymoon right now. I should have known something was up; for the last month or so he's been going on about how I should get into a serious relationship.
Your therapist kept obsessively trying to get you to troll the liberal bloggers you read just to piss them off?
Honestly:
"Do you feel that you're emotionally retarded?"
"What? Am I what? Huh?"
I've seen two therapists over the years, and neither of them would ever have asked me a leading question like that. Very strange.
245: Actually, it went more like this:
Therapist: Christ, k-sky, what are you? Like, emotionally retahded???
My therapist keeps trying to sell me a time share in Florida. I'm sure that it is just a way to get me to open-up about my childhood.
My therapist is also my mom's and sister's therapist. At one point she said to me, "We can cover a lot of ground here quickly. I know your mother very well. I have a pretty good idea of what's wrong with you."
There were a number of ways in which the setup and the candor were not straight out of the rulebook, but it was a great experience.
The moral of the story is that if you're going to be an a$$hole on Lufthansa, don't order coffee.
"I'm Earl Scheib, M.D., Ph.D., and I'll shrink that depressive tendency for $49.59!"
(There is a longer and more amusing story around this anecdote, but the present moment is not an auspicious time to relate it.)
Going to wait until the plane lands?
249.1: Good lord. It's amazing that that worked out well. Not so emotionally retarded after all, then, are you? Ha!
All good therapists ask for you PIN number, right?
Not so emotionally retarded after all, then, are you?
I don't see how that follows.
I've done my share of "what if I were to leave?" fantasizing over the last few years. I think it probably comes with the territory of being in a sexually dysfunctional but otherwise mostly happy marriage. It's a dilemma I'll probably have to face for real in a couple of years once our son is off on his own, and I'm not really looking forward to it.
One thing that's seemed pretty clear to me is that I would need a period of sexual experimentation before I would be willing to sign up for another long-term monogamous commitment. For one thing, I really would like to know how much of my ED is a psychological reaction to the dynamics of my current marriage, how much is just the physiological effects of aging, and how much might be physically-based but still responsive to doing stuff that really turns me on. What I would look for in a hypothetical future relationship would be pretty heavily influenced by the answer to that question, and I'm not sure if I can fully answer it without some extensive experimentation with someone who is not my current spouse. For another thing, there's a bunch of stuff I would really like to try before possibly negotiating it away in a future monogamous agreement. (It probably says something about my state of mind that I currently think of monogamy primarily in terms of loss and sacrifice, even as I continue to honor it.)
Now granted, the original question has maintained a pretty clear distinction between casual dating and "ready for the L-word" dating, but I do worry about what if the only potential partners all turn out to be looking for the latter. (I alternate between imagining bevies of hot divorcees just waiting to jump my bones, and imagining a long, long drought before finding anyone remotely interested.) Thoughts?
257: Given that the marriage is mostly happy other than the sexual difficulties, in a perfect world you would find a way of sorting out your questions about the sexual issues before making permanent decisions about the marriage. Realistically, I expect that's not easy to do. There's cheating, which (a) is going to fuck with the happiness of the marriage at some level even if you would never get caught and (b) may compound the sexual issues by adding guilt to the mix. There's discussing the possibility of an open relationship or period of open experimentation with the wife -- but unless she's already on the same page (is she?), that has potential to cause problems in the otherwise happy marriage. What would suck would be bailing on an emotionally satisfying relationship only to find that sexual satisfaction, too, remains elusive. At the end of the day, though, the "right" answer is going to be highly personal and depend on nuances and intricacies of your relationship with your wife that we aren't privvy to.
Morning and nighttime wood is not psychological, an easy barometer. Also, the physiology is a matter of bloodflow. Frequent exhausting aerobic exercise pushes the margin considerably. Cutout bike seat if you do that. Lastly, though it may be inconsistent with your current self-image, there is medication, maybe a way to sustain the existing relationship.
If the current relationship is emotionally satisfying, I would say don't cheat, for the reason's di gives-- unless you're really warped, compartmentalizing doesn't work well. Mary Todd was a real bundle, but even Abe wisely stayed away from videographers.
I don't know how the apostrophe got in reason's, I am literate.
Thanks, Di and Abe. Cheating isn't likely to be in the cards. I don't like the idea of lying and sneaking around, and I'm fully aware that having an affair would destroy most of the progress we've managed to make in the last six years of marriage counseling, and probably take the marriage down with it. I'm pretty committed to trying to handle this with integrity and an open process in which I'm trying to work through this stuff with my wife as an active partner in addressing our issues. I do find myself more understanding of why some people do feel impelled to cheat in similar circumstances. Working through our stuff this way is hard and painful at best, often painfully slow, expensive, and with no guarantees of success. But I think it offers the best chance of hanging on to the best parts of the marriage, or of being able to part with mutual respect if we ultimately can't make it work.
I've brought up the idea of some form of open marriage as a possible solution. It's my second most-preferred outcome, behind being able to resolve our sexual differences within the marriage, but ahead of both leaving and enduring the way things are indefinitely. But my wife doesn't even want to consider it as an option.
One thing the whole Edwards affair has done for me is increase my fear of waiting too long to resolve the issue. Seeing the way so many people have jumped on him for running around on his dying wife (even though she's still got a bunch of living left to do) has gotten me thinking about what might happen if one of us were to come down with something lingering but terminal with our sexual issues still unresolved. The possibility of either being wracked with guilt over leaving a woman who really needs me, or of finding that I can no longer leave because I need her to care for me gives me nightmares. I'm acutely aware that I don't know how many years of (relative) sexual health I have left, and I've already spent a bunch of them trying to make sure that our son grew up with a stable home life (among other motives). I really don't want to be a sexual George Bailey, always dreaming about leaving Bedford Falls and never quite making it because his sense of duty keeps pulling him back. But I do love my wife, and still hope that we might find a way to work things out. Hence my dilemma.
259: Abe, I don't have a problem getting an erection in the presence of friction. My issue is sustaining enough firmness long enough to achieve insertion for intercourse without more-or-less continuous stimulation. Pills help, though they're not a cure-all.
I lean towards the psychologically-oriented explanations (1 or 3 in my 257), especially since I have been able to make it without the pills a couple of times in the past year when we brought back an activity from our past that I had thought was gone forever. She still feels pretty conflicted about it, though, so we haven't really resolved the issue yet.
Getting back to the original question, if I did leave, there is no fricking way I would want to wait half the length of the relationship before getting active again. Like I said, I'm acutely aware that I have a limited number of years of (relative) sexual health left, and I wouldn't want to waste any more of them than absolutely necessary, certainly not to satisfy some arbitrary standard. If I wanted to wait until I have to settle for loving companionship in a relatively sexless marriage, I could do that now and not have to pay either the marriage counselor or the lawyers.
(Please note: I do this not to mock serious, sad, and honestly offered relationship discussion, but because I make fun of everything. Don't take it personally!)
I have been able to make it without the pills a couple of times in the past year when we brought back an activity from our past that I had thought was gone forever
I miss Jai Alai too.
Really? I've enjoyed many fun Jai Alai sessions with Blume over the last year.
Edguy, that is a serious dilemma. Wow. Thanks for being honest and sharing.
Dan Savage makes an excellent case for getting your sexual needs met elsewhere, and never revealing anything to your partner.
Also, given that you guys have been in counseling for six years and it's improved the relationship outside the bedroom, I bet that there's a frontier inside the bedroom, too. There's some fantastic book out there - (anyone know which one I mean? Bitch PhD has mentioned it before, too. Something about marriage? I guess I could go find it) - which speaks with incredible insight to how marriage affects sex.
Specifically, how hard it is to make yourself vulnerable in the bedroom with the person you're welded to everywhere else in your life. Hang on, let me go find this title. It's a pretty amazing book.
Here it is. The webpage reads slightly like self-help, but it's really a very good book, or so I remember.
267,268: Thanks, heebie. I've already gotten and read Schnarch's book a few years ago based on B's recommendation. It's very good. It's one of three books that I've suggested to my wife might be helpful to us if she was willing to read them and discuss them with me (the other two being The Ethical Slut and When Someone You Love is Kinky, both by Dossie Easton and Catherine Liszt).
So far, she's mostly reacted as if I were a Jehovah's Witness trying to push a copy of the Watchtower on her. I've tried to emphasize that I'm not trying to push them in a "read this and be converted" sense, but just a "hey, here's some ideas that other people have had about dealing with sexuality and intimacy issues, and I'd be interested in what you think in response, whether you agree or disagree." So far, though, it's a no go. She has allowed that someday she might be willing to read Schnarch, but is unlikely to ever want to read the other two. I've shared a couple of the vignettes from Schnarch that I found meaningful with her, and we've tried a couple of the exercises together. But Schnarch emphasizes that you really shouldn't be underlining passages in the book for your partner to read, instead allowing them to explore the book and their own reactions for themselves. So I'm wary of doing too much interpretation for her.
267, again: Dan Savage's advice may well be the best solution for some people in similar circumstances. I certainly don't think the path I've chosen is for everyone, and it's not yet clear how well it will eventually work out for me.
But one thing that's pretty clear to me is that if our marriage counselling is to work out, I need to be able to bring my authentic self to the sessions, not a façade that I've constructed to try and conceal a secret that big. I need to be able to share my actual feelings and issues, and not have to constantly watch what I say out of fear of giving myself away. Otherwise, I'm just wasting my time and money there going through the motions. Maybe someone who was reluctantly dragged to counselling by their spouse could justify doing that, as a way of playing for time. But I'm the one who asked for counselling both times to address our issues. I've invested a lot over the years in trying to make this work. And I really don't think that I could pursue a secret affair without having everything I've worked for go smash.
If anyone's still reading, thanks for listening. I appreciate all the feedback and support.
If anyone's still reading, thanks for listening. I appreciate all the feedback and support.
I'm still reading. I don't have any advice but I am also amazed at your honesty and the clear amount of thought that you've put into these questions.
If anyone's still reading, thanks for listening. I appreciate all the feedback and support.
One question, which has almost certainly come up in your counseling, and which may or may not be helpful (and, of course, that you should answer or not in whatever way you chose):
If your wife were asked, "Would it be a positive thing, for you, for your husband to feel more sexually satisfied?"
Do you think she would answer (1) "Of course, but my ability to change my own behavior is limited by other considerations." (2) "No. I recognize that it would be positive for him, but that isn't a motivating consideration for me" or (3) would she get defensive about the question.
I'm curious to what extent the conversation about sex has gotten to a point where it feels, emotionally, like a zero-sum negotiation -- that each of you feel like it's difficult to respond to the other's desires without feeling like you would be giving something up or conceding terrain?
273 is a good question and kind of resonates with how I read 269.2. The resistance to even reading the books has a feeling of not exactly defensiveness so much as, for lack of a better word, fear. Like the subject is threatening to your wife. (I'm either empathetic to that feeling or maybe projecting.) So much of sexuality is mental, which makes it all the more challenging when sexual issues become so much of a central focus.
Also, just further endorsing 270.2. The guy I know who thought he could solve a problem very similar to yours by having an affair now lives with deep regrets because it's something he will never* be able to share openly with his wife and, thus, imposes a sort of permanent distance and separation between them.
* Never say never, of course, and maybe the day will come that they are able to talk openly. But it sure as hell won't be anytime soon.
The resistance to even reading the books has a feeling of not exactly defensiveness so much as, for lack of a better word, fear. Like the subject is threatening to your wife.
Ding ding... and my immediate reaction is "your relationship is dead, you just haven't realized it yet". They're fucking *books*; it's not like you're asking her to act on anything in them, just to read them. If she's unwilling or unable to do that, it seems highly unlikely to me that she'll be willing or able to do the other things you need from her.
I need to be able to bring my authentic self to the sessions
I'm not really asking for an answer, but has your authentic self also included the side of you that is frustrated to the point of fantasizing about leaving? That's authentic too.