Sex IS a need, for some.

[dallasapple]

I know you can't see my face or hear my tone, so please accept that I'm asking because I'd like to know your opinion. Why is it that need has negative connotations in this case? Why is it that duty has to be negative? If we do things for our kids out of duty isn't that still a loving choice? Why is it not if it is for our spouse?

With children you may love them.But its really NOT a "choice" to provide for them basic necessities..as well as we are "molding them to one day become independent of us that we will no longer be responsible for those needs..and those needs(many of them) ARE life and death ..unlike sex.and as time goes by ..there are less and less responsiblities..

I know for ONE I would be completely depressed..if my husband looked at having sex with me as a "task" that he is responsible for .That but for maybe some sense of "got that taken care of..and hopefully did a good "job'..he had no desire for himself..or interest in the task itself.The fact that he would be "willing to do it".."for" me out of what I claimed was a "need" of MINE similar to how you know you "have to" change your baby's diaper.For me wouldnt matter that he was completing this 'task" ..its not what sex is ABOUT for me so it would be completely empty..Including the factor ..as in changing a babies diaper..you are "avoiding negative consequences'..its not an intimate mutually satisfying experience anymore..

We have had these conversations before..I've had them with my husband and its been discussed here over and over..on any regular basis..its unfulfilling to have sex when its one person "taking care" of the other one that has that "need"..and the other one if they had a 'choice' no negative consequences for not..wouldnt engage.

I think what people are calling a 'need" is a desire to be desired..and having sex with someone thats approaching it because out of love for that person in general..they dont 'desire" the sex..they dont "get anythign " out of it.. that its thier responsiblility///their obligation ..is not filling that "need" to be desired..

Its like "do you want me'..(sexually)..no ...but if you 'need sex" I'll do it for you ...'are you enjoying this" (sex)..no...but you are..so I dont "mind" doing it for you .Dont get me wrong..if that happens rarely ..on occassion ..even 1 out of 10 times..its really not worth mentioning actually...but if its one person trying to "service" the other ones much higher libido than the other one? Or having sex through emotions and feeligns towards that person at the time you really would rather not even be in the same ROOM with them let alone let then touch you intimately ..The one with the lower libido NEVER builds up desire.if the relationship issues if there are any arent resolved...they cant ..they are overloaded and desenstized with having "undesired" sex on a regular basis.. resentments do build..People are human..its hard not to "let on" that you would rather not be doing "it' if its on any regular basis you are in that position of "doing it' for them....You are mentally not thier ..emotionally not there..and physically irritated when you have no interest in sex..and are "doing it" for the other one.Or to try and "appease" them..

And I've seen it 100 times..the one on the "recieving" end of this obligatory sex isnt happy about it.Because they 'need" to be desired /wanted"..not "serviced" like a machine.So I say if you want to go around saying "whats wrong with it being a duty" ..then I dont get why so many complain when they get 'duty sex"//its critisized still ..the lonliness is still present..the longing to be longed is still there..the one in the role of offering up the duty sex is then accused of 'not getting it"..and it really boils down to they are then accused of "witholding " 'passon"..well Im here to tell you that you cant be witholding somethign thats NOT THERE to withold..

Dallas

 

[chaz345]

IMO.....it's not the lack of sex....you even said it....it's the lack of regard from the one person that vowed to love you until death parts you. You gave your heart & your life over to this man, that commitment (when honored) goes hand in hand with sex. When we love and trust, and that's returned, then that's when I believe sex is the natural result.

I'm confused because in the past when we've been talking about refusal, you've specifically said that refusing sex is not the same as disregarding feelings. I'm sorry if that sounds like a gotcha or like I'm trying to re-hash, that's not it at all, I'm just confused because you seem to be saying the exact opposite of what you've said before. One could think that the difference is that in the past conversations the refusing spouse was female, but since you frequently say nothing is about gender for you, that can't be it. Then again, in the past, when the example has been a refusing wife your main focus has been about why so I guess I'm also confused why that's not your main focus here.

 

[McScribe]

In a sense it is a desire to be desired. Children don't need to be liked or treated with affection either, and that appears to be a choice.

It is frustrating to me that I see people from what I can see advocating the right to decide to not try to foster good attitudes in marriage. That is how I am seeing this. What I see is that I am being urged to just take what I am dished out.

 

[mkgal1]

I'm confused because in the past when we've been talking about refusal, you've specifically said that refusing sex is not the same as disregarding feelings. I'm sorry if that sounds like a gotcha or like I'm trying to re-hash, that's not it at all, I'm just confused because you seem to be saying the exact opposite of what you've said before. One could think that the difference is that in the past conversations the refusing spouse was female, but since you frequently say nothing is about gender for you, that can't be it. Then again, in the past, when the example has been a refusing wife your main focus has been about why so I guess I'm also confused why that's not your main focus here.

You may be confused because you seemed to have zeroed in on this one part of what's been said, and it seems that you came to your own conclusion w/o the details that Rose has shared.

I'm not saying that his sexual refusal is the neglect......the other parts are not present in their marriage, from what Rose has said. Sometimes the same person that's withholding communication, involvement, friendship, etc is also the same person that's withholding sex.

What my post was trying to express to Rose is, I would suspect that even if her husband "gave in" and agreed to have sex with her once a week (for her...as a sacrifice) because of all the other elements that are missing, I would imagine it would be empty. This is a lame comparison, but, it's like a person that is very lonely being advised to go to a party where they didn't know anyone--and everyone else was very connected and had a lot in common. Going to that party doesn't solve the lonliness issue.......it can actually intensify it.

So, yes.....in response to your post....it does seem that you were confused. Does that make sense now? Do you see how I was not contradicting myself? It has nothing to do with whom is withholding.....that witholding is normally a natural occurance when love/respect, commitment, admiration, and value are missing--and either spouse can be the one that's withholding.

 

[mkgal1]

I have not had a chance to finish reading this thread, had to work a late shift last night.

I strongly disagree with this. Maybe some can loose the sex in their marriage and not feel broken or in a dead marriage, but I am not one of them.
I am not a stoic, and for me my marriage is dead. I have been going through the motions and wearing a happy mask for my son and for the world, but I am starting to feel that it wont last much longer. Each month, each week feels harder and harder to put that mask on. I don't know how it will end, but I have a feeling it will end with in the next few years. A great deal of me just doesn't care anymore about it all.

That hardest part really isn't so much the lack of sex, it is that my husband has shown so little care for my needs that he replaced me with a tv set, a ball game, or his mother. His disregarde for my needs in the marriage makes me feel like I'm compeltetly replaceable, completely undesirable, and not good enough for him. Every day I go to bed with my heart and soul crushed.

I feel as if anything I say is going to sound so trite and unfeeling. I don't have an answer for this, but I really wish I did. I'm hoping that Dreamer, since she has gotten to the other side of this, can offer some encouragement.

IMO.....it's not the lack of sex....you even said it....it's the lack of regard from the one person that vowed to love you until death parts you. You gave your heart & your life over to this man, that commitment (when honored) goes hand in hand with sex. When we love and trust, and that's returned, then that's when I believe sex is the natural result. When that was just a sham.....and it becomes apparent....that is the deepest betrayal known to humankind. The one you trusted the most---risked it all for---stabbed you in the back. That's separate from sex--and when it all gets bound up together, I think that's what confuses the topic.

What I mean is......two people can have sexual problems (for many reasons) but, can both still have the willlingness to love one another (hopefully as they are trying to figure out the issue w/o pressuring one another)....nurturing the relationship itself (which I have read that you are turning yourself into a pretzel trying---that tells me it isn't YOU.) It takes two. That still doesn't mean that one needs to walk out the door......there has to be a place in the middle where one can detach and still be holding out hope for restoration (and not grow bitter). I guess that's the million dollar question. Where....how is that done? God has gotten people through much more difficult things, and I agree with Jane....that's available to ALL who seek Him.

Just thought I would repost these posts again, since they got a bit chopped up.

 

[dallasapple]

In a sense it is a desire to be desired. Children don't need to be liked or treated with affection either, and that appears to be a choice.

It is frustrating to me that I see people from what I can see advocating the right to decide to not try to foster good attitudes in marriage. That is how I am seeing this. What I see is that I am being urged to just take what I am dished out.

Yes children do..Children are FORMING an identity Mcsribe..they are a "blank" slate..Adults have formed their identity.A child MIRRORS who they are as a person from how their parents interact approve disprove of them.

A child that is ingored/unloved/unliked by their parents from birth .. but who have thier basic neccessities taken care of..can and do grow up to be mentally ill and in many cases wreak havok on society unfortunately and are permenentally warped...sociopaths every one of them had a lack of beign "approved" of or liked or loved as children..Considered burdens and treated with emotional indifference..Scott Peterson is an example..his physical needs were taken care of ..but he was treated as a nuiscence..and as if he basically didnt exist otherwise..

A person who has already formed a healthy view of themself as an adult.the pain they may feel from any sort of rejection as an adult..can NOT be compared to a childs NEED for thier parents to like them/love them in order to GROW UP to be a healthy overall individual.

In fact children who dont get enough interaction with people (in general just interaction period) after a certain age will have brain "damage"..parts of the brain that do not develop properly such as an ability to speak or learn a language and its permenant after a certain age..they can never learn it ..at least not to their othewise maximum capacity..

You can not compare the need of a child to flourish and become 'normal' individuals to an adults desire for SEX and physical affection ..

You can ..but I completely disagree..so would every child developmental expert unless they were a quack.

Dallas

 

[chaz345]

You may be confused because you seemed to have zeroed in on this one part of what's been said, and it seems that you came to your own conclusion w/o the details that Rose has shared.

I'm not saying that his sexual refusal is the neglect......the other parts are not present in their marriage, from what Rose has said. Sometimes the same person that's withholding communication, involvement, friendship, etc is also the same person that's withholding sex.

What my post was trying to express to Rose is, I would suspect that even if her husband "gave in" and agreed to have sex with her once a week (for her...as a sacrifice) because of all the other elements that are missing, I would imagine it would be empty. This is a lame comparison, but, it's like a person that is very lonely being advised to go to a party where they didn't know anyone--and everyone else was very connected and had a lot in common. Going to that party doesn't solve the lonliness issue.......it can actually intensify it.

So, yes.....in response to your post....it does seem that you were confused. Does that make sense now? Do you see how I was not contradicting myself? It has nothing to do with whom is withholding.....that witholding is normally a natural occurance when love/respect, commitment, admiration, and value are missing--and either spouse can be the one that's withholding.

No to be honest I don't see how it's not a contradiction to what you had said previously. I said almost exactly what you did, that it's not about the sex it's about the disregard for the other's feelings and you pretty stronjgly disagreed. Maybe the issue is that you disagree that "I don't like sex and you just need to deal with it" is a disregard for the other's feelings. Like I had said a long time ago, it's not the lack of sex that is the disregard for the other's feelings, it's the "you just need to deal with it" that is.

 

[mkgal1]

No to be honest I don't see how it's not a contradiction to what you had said previously. I said almost exactly what you did, that it's not about the sex it's about the disregard for the other's feelings and you pretty stronjgly disagreed. Maybe the issue is that you disagree that "I don't like sex and you just need to deal with it" is a disregard for the other's feelings. Like I had said a long time ago, it's not the lack of sex that is the disregard for the other's feelings, it's the "you just need to deal with it" that is.

The disconnect between us, I believe, is that you bind up sex with all other aspects of the marriage. I am separating them out. When someone is saying "no" to sex......if they are willingly fostering the other parts of the marriage, then they aren't rejecting the person--they are rejecting sex.

What I am saying is.....if all other aspects were good between a husband and wife---like it is between a certain poster that is here in this sub-forum, then the lack of sex makes both of them sad (from what's been said--and for lack of a better word)....they don't want for it to continue this way....but, it isn't destroying either of them, nor is it coming between them. IOW....because they communicate....show love and affection to one another.....value one another.....cherish and enjoy their time together....neither feels a lack of love (again, from what I've read). That is what I am saying.

I'm not sure why you mentioned someone saying, "I don't like sex and you just have to deal with it".....that hasn't been mentioned before in this thread.

 

[mkgal1]

No to be honest I don't see how it's not a contradiction to what you had said previously. I said almost exactly what you did, that it's not about the sex it's about the disregard for the other's feelings and you pretty stronjgly disagreed. Maybe the issue is that you disagree that "I don't like sex and you just need to deal with it" is a disregard for the other's feelings. Like I had said a long time ago, it's not the lack of sex that is the disregard for the other's feelings, it's the "you just need to deal with it" that is.

Let me try again, as the "edit" button still isn't working.

Rose has shared that her husband not only rejects her sexually, but he also places things like TV watching.....ball games, and his mother above her. That is the lack of regard.

 

[chaz345]

Let me try again, as the "edit" button still isn't working.

Rose has shared that her husband not only rejects her sexually, but he also places things like TV watching.....ball games, and his mother above her. That is the lack of regard.

Ok see I disagree. I say that the refusal itself, IF it's combined with a lack of willingness to work on whatever the cause of the refusal is, is also a lack of regard.

And I'm also again confused about your previous post because you said that if all the other stuff is working in a marriage then the lack of sex isn't a marriage killing issue but you often say that the only reason someone would refuse is if the other stuff isn't working.

 

[mkgal1]

Ok see I disagree. I say that the refusal itself, IF it's combined with a lack of willingness to work on whatever the cause of the refusal is, is also a lack of regard.

And I'm also again confused about your previous post because you said that if all the other stuff is working in a marriage then the lack of sex isn't a marriage killing issue but you often say that the only reason someone would refuse is if the other stuff isn't working.

I'm not surprised to read that, as we have been down this road probably thousands of times over the years.

Maybe consider this.....if you flip things around, there is just as much disregard on the other side as well. The one that wants sex is disregarding the other persons feelings to NOT engage at the moment. It becomes a downward spiral. The cause of the refusal can very well be that disregard. When all other efforts to express love are thrown out the window (disregarded), and a person is implying they are being rejected & not shown love, that is when you will often hear "all you want me for is sex."

No.....I have NOT said that "the only reason someone would refuse sex is because the other stuff isn't working." YOU have been the one to assign that belief to me repeatedly, and repeatedly I have stated that there are MANY reasons why a person would say, "no" to sex. It is a VERY complex act, and their are often very complex reasons for the "no's". It's not as simple as "you aren't loving me".

 

[dallasapple]

See that the problem..someone having unwanted sex is a "good thing"..the fact they are doing something they don't want to is "loving"..for some reason its ignored that the person whos ENJOYING themselves at the others discomfort /expense/or feelings isnt looked at as selfish at all..its looked at as they are only engaging in what they are entilteld to "sex" with their spouse...Dont say its not "entitelment" the minute you use the word duty..duty is an obligation ..and in this case the act of sex..therefore there is no way not to see it as an entitlement by the one receiving the other ones act of duty and follow through on obligation ..Its never seen as what it is at root..selfish and uncaring to enjoy your self at your spouses expense..

and dont compare it to going to work or taking your child to the dentist..no other act puts us at that level of intimacy and vulnerablility..its illegal to even do it unless its out of the public eye..its considered a lewd publidc act..unlike going ot work or taking your child to the dentist..nothing else can compare to it for a reason.

Dallas

 

[Created2Write]

IMO it's only selfish when the spouse who doesn't want to have sex is forced, pressured or manipulated into it. Which I think we all would agree is wrong. Choosing to make the sacrifice to do it when you're not in the mood is not selfish, imo. I also think it's equally selfish for the spouse who doesn't want sex to force the other spouse to go without. Force, manipulation or pressure on either side is selfish.

Sometimes the spouse who wants to have sex needs to be willing to sacrifice and go without as a demonstration of love. Likewise the spouse who isn't in the mood should sometimes be willing to do it as a demonstration of love as well. Doing it when you're in the mood and when you're not in the mood are both demonstrations of love, imo. And if sex is about love, why wouldn't you want to show love to your spouse?

 

[McScribe]

IMO it's only selfish when the spouse who doesn't want to have sex is forced, pressured or manipulated into it. Which I think we all would agree is wrong. Choosing to make the sacrifice to do it when you're not in the mood is not selfish, imo. I also think it's equally selfish for the spouse who doesn't want sex to force the other spouse to go without. Force, manipulation or pressure on either side is selfish.

Sometimes the spouse who wants to have sex needs to be willing to sacrifice and go without as a demonstration of love. Likewise the spouse who isn't in the mood should sometimes be willing to do it as a demonstration of love as well. Doing it when you're in the mood and when you're not in the mood are both demonstrations of love, imo. And if sex is about love, why wouldn't you want to show love to your spouse?

I very much agree with this.

 

[iambren]

Late post--I don't believe sex is a need like food and water but at times it may FEEL like a need that way. I've read of people in the Holocaust say that sex and thoughts of sex were vanished in their fight to survival.

I would like to take another crack at this "sex as duty" thing. I see it as a benevolent,loving,constancy of meeting your spouses sexual needs. It is an ATTITUDE of being faithfully"present" for your mate. As that mate relaxes to the point that in their mind "I can have it at any time because they are constant in their love for me" then it becomes a non-issue. To use it as a power weapon takes all the blessing out of what God intended. You've got more problems in your marriage than sex if your husband is waving a whip saying "To the bedroom woman!!". A deeper pathology.

 

[roseread]

I feel as if anything I say is going to sound so trite and unfeeling. I don't have an answer for this, but I really wish I did. I'm hoping that Dreamer, since she has gotten to the other side of this, can offer some encouragement.

IMO.....it's not the lack of sex....you even said it....it's the lack of regard from the one person that vowed to love you until death parts you. You gave your heart & your life over to this man, that commitment (when honored) goes hand in hand with sex. When we love and trust, and that's returned, then that's when I believe sex is the natural result. When that was just a sham.....and it becomes apparent....that is the deepest betrayal known to humankind. The one you trusted the most---risked it all for---stabbed you in the back. That's separate from sex--and when it all gets bound up together, I think that's what confuses the topic.

What I mean is......two people can have sexual problems (for many reasons) but, can both still have the willlingness to love one another (hopefully as they are trying to figure out the issue w/o pressuring one another)....nurturing the relationship itself (which I have read that you are turning yourself into a pretzel trying---that tells me it isn't YOU.) It takes two. That still doesn't mean that one needs to walk out the door......there has to be a place in the middle where one can detach and still be holding out hope for restoration (and not grow bitter). I guess that's the million dollar question. Where....how is that done? God has gotten people through much more difficult things, and I agree with Jane....that's available to ALL who seek Him.

With him refusing to get help for the lack of desire, I see that as his lack of willingness to love. If he was seeking a way to get his sex drive back, then I could be patience. But the fact that he refuses to believe me when I say that I need sex--he says that it is my problem and that he does not need to work on it.

His refusal to even acknowledge this as a problem poisons everything else in our marriage. Most people think he is a wonderful man, and in many ways he is. He is a good provider, he works hard and makes good money so that if I didn't want to work I wouldn't have too. He is involved with our son's life, he helps disapline him, he helps with homework, and goes to his ball-games. I know several moms who can not even get the father of their kid to attend games; they are always busy or at work or just isn't into going to games on a Saturday when other games on TV are more interesting. He isn't jealous, I can go out on a ladies' night with the other mom's without him calling me every 20 minutes (I get to where I don't like ladies night anymore because all the other husbands are calling their wives like every 20 minutes, saying "are you coming home now? When are you coming home?") The my women friends think he is this wonderful charming man because he does't keep tabs on me. And if they knew he disliked sex they would put him on a pedestal and worship him.

He is a great guy, and a with the exception of sex, he is a great husband. But when you take that one factor and deny it, and deny that it is even a problem, and refuse to even work on it, refuse to even see it as a probelm--well then it just poisons everything else in the marriage. I do not see him a as a loving husband because he works, and is involved with our son. I see him as doing it for show because if he was a loving husband he would want to take care of all of my needs just not the need for food and shelter.

 

[chaz345]

With him refusing to get help for the lack of desire, I see that as his lack of willingness to love. If he was seeking a way to get his sex drive back, then I could be patience. But the fact that he refuses to believe me when I say that I need sex--he says that it is my problem and that he does not need to work on it.

His refusal to even acknowledge this as a problem poisons everything else in our marriage. Most people think he is a wonderful man, and in many ways he is. He is a good provider, he works hard and makes good money so that if I didn't want to work I wouldn't have too. He is involved with our son's life, he helps disapline him, he helps with homework, and goes to his ball-games. I know several moms who can not even get the father of their kid to attend games; they are always busy or at work or just isn't into going to games on a Saturday when other games on TV are more interesting. He isn't jealous, I can go out on a ladies' night with the other mom's without him calling me every 20 minutes (I get to where I don't like ladies night anymore because all the other husbands are calling their wives like every 20 minutes, saying "are you coming home now? When are you coming home?") The my women friends think he is this wonderful charming man because he does't keep tabs on me. And if they knew he disliked sex they would put him on a pedestal and worship him.

He is a great guy, and a with the exception of sex, he is a great husband. But when you take that one factor and deny it, and deny that it is even a problem, and refuse to even work on it, refuse to even see it as a probelm--well then it just poisons everything else in the marriage. I do not see him a as a loving husband because he works, and is involved with our son. I see him as doing it for show because if he was a loving husband he would want to take care of all of my needs just not the need for food and shelter.

What you say here is EXACTLY what I've said all along on this. The lack of sex itself is, while definitely not good, a minor problem compared to the disregard shown by refusing to even try to do anything about it.

 

[hijklmnop]

IMO it's only selfish when the spouse who doesn't want to have sex is forced, pressured or manipulated into it. Which I think we all would agree is wrong.

I believe that manipulation is usually indirect and subtle. Keeping that in mind, if I knew that my spouse believed that I was obligated to "do my duty" anytime he wanted sex, and that a spouse who doesn't is sinning, being selfish, turning their back on their marriage, etc, I would be hard-pressed NOT to feel pressured into doing what I don't necessarily want to do, but feel I must to avoid my spouse's and God's judgement and keep my marriage together. Its spiritual manipulation, imo.

I'm not saying that each spouse needs to absolutely be "on fire" in order to have sex. Sometimes I want it less than other times but am still up for it. Sometimes I know your spouse wants it more than me in the moment but I am still up for it (and vice versa). Imo, that's fine. But if the time comes when you really, truly DON'T want it...in fact it's the LAST thing you feel up for physically and/or emotionally, then even KNOWING your spouse is taking it as a big spiritual sign that you are rejecting the marriage, being selfish, sinning, etc, is an oppressive, pressure-cooker feeling. At least, it would be to me. It doesn't have to be stated directly in the moment to be manipulation or pressure. It's the principle that is held onto that is the pressure. I take comfort in knowing that if I ever really don't want to have sex my h will give me the space I desire and give it to me with respect and without judgement, and vice versa. I believe THAT cultivates love towards each other moreso than obligatory sex.

 

[chaz345]

I'm not sure why you mentioned someone saying, "I don't like sex and you just have to deal with it".....that hasn't been mentioned before in this thread.

Maybe he hasn't specifically said "I don't like sex" but the the other part is exactly what Rose is describing in her husband so yes it has been mentioned in this thread.

 

[roseread]

Yes children do..Children are FORMING an identity Mcsribe..they are a "blank" slate..Adults have formed their identity.A child MIRRORS who they are as a person from how their parents interact approve disprove of them.

A child that is ingored/unloved/unliked by their parents from birth .. but who have thier basic neccessities taken care of..can and do grow up to be mentally ill and in many cases wreak havok on society unfortunately and are permenentally warped...sociopaths every one of them had a lack of beign "approved" of or liked or loved as children..Considered burdens and treated with emotional indifference..Scott Peterson is an example..his physical needs were taken care of ..but he was treated as a nuiscence..and as if he basically didnt exist otherwise..

A person who has already formed a healthy view of themself as an adult.the pain they may feel from any sort of rejection as an adult..can NOT be compared to a childs NEED for thier parents to like them/love them in order to GROW UP to be a healthy overall individual.

In fact children who dont get enough interaction with people (in general just interaction period) after a certain age will have brain "damage"..parts of the brain that do not develop properly such as an ability to speak or learn a language and its permenant after a certain age..they can never learn it ..at least not to their othewise maximum capacity..

You can not compare the need of a child to flourish and become 'normal' individuals to an adults desire for SEX and physical affection ..

You can ..but I completely disagree..so would every child developmental expert unless they were a quack.

Dallas

You are right in that there is a difference between an adult needing to feel loved and desired in a relationship and a child's need to feel loved and wanted by their parents.

But if a spouse is constantly refused you can not act like there isn't any damage done both to the marriage and to the refused spouse.

I have been living this for years, constant refusal by my husband and let me tell you I am starting to feel a bit crazy. Going into the marriage I had a healthy view of myself as an adult. But now--I don't think so. My whole mental state has been wrecked--mainly because I feel trapped. I would love to just walk out. But I look at my son and think, 11 more years of this? I cann't do it. I can not go to bed alone and unloved for 11 more years. I just want to leave. There are times when I get in my car and think, well I can just keep driving, maybe change my name and leave them both to take care of each other. But I chicken out because I don't want to feel alone, I am scared of being poor, and I do love my son.

I dreamed last night that my husband was killed in a robbery. When I woke up I was still half in the dream and thought he was dead. Instead of feeling devastated, I felt sad--but relieved that I didn't have to live with him anymore and that I was free of this marriage.

I don't wish him dead, but I wish so much to be free of this marriage. To be able to just start over again. I wish I never had a child with him. It would be so much easier to leave. There are times when I think, well there is that cliff outside of town, I could take the coward's way out. But I chicken out of that too.

I am a complete emotional wreck. I cry myself to sleep many nights. I find myself crying as I drive home because I don't want to go home. I am so sick of wearing this happy mask for him, for my son and for the world. I am just so freaking sick of it all. And so much of it stems from HIS REFUSAL!

And you say that a mentally healthy adult can withstand not being loved by their spouse? I was never like this before he stopped. I felt normal, believe myself to be normal. But now I don't know what to do. I feel like I have no where to turn and no way out, that I am just trapped.