Does your spouse (or SO) have the right

[peachykeen]

LOL Bobmi, I thought you were somewhat disputing my position earlier, and now you're doing an excellent defense of it.

I really do agree with just about every single word you've put down here though.

 

[smoke34]

have to ask - should the spouse that's cutting off the sexual contact also have had 'permission' to do so? like, "darling, i know it's terribly awful of me, but would you mind too much if i just stopped having sex with you for, say, the next 3 years?"

this is a very complex issue, and some people are going to solve it for themselves by having an affair, with or without 'specifically getting permission'.

the first statement above seems to say that while one person can undermine the fabric of a relationship at their whim, the other person really has no say.
that they are supposed to carry all the obligation to fix it, but this is regardless of how they have been dismissed by their partner.

whichever way you say it, with-holding sexual contact from your partner for an extended length of time, and not actively working with them to solve the issues, means you have given up the right to dictate what your partner can and can't do with regard to their own gratification, IMO.

And all I can say in reply to that, is "Say it again, Lady"...Well said...it''s like a contract...once YOU break the contract, you cannot force the partner to the contract to honor it, either..

 

[angela146]

what i would like to know is - do some people just 'lose' all desire to have sex?

i mean, what is it that can turn a person from wanting sex 5 times a day, to not wanting to be even hugged?

especially if those same people say they are still in love, but just don't want the physical?

how is that possible?

Hormones. Some women, and some men, have reduced libido as they get older because they have hormone imbalances.

"the pill" can make a big difference as can other kinds of medication.

If that's the case, see a doctor who specializes in sexual function. Not all ob/gyns have a clue.

 

[James G 5]

here're a few thoughts on this (the first couple are reiterations)
First off, of course both partners have a right to their bodies and nothing should be forced
However, as noted there will often be serious & lasting emotional damage if this is done...accept the consequences of your actions
As far as the non-receptive partner "just taking it", that partner will probably get resentful and the other partner will probably get little enjoyment from it
This IS a good reason to consider non-monogamous relationships (one reason Pouty & I have this agreement is that I have a MUCH higher sex drive than her and she doesn't mind if I satisfy it elsewhere as long as I "come home" to her, so to speak)
However, said non-monogamy should be MUTUAL...cheating never does anyone any good

Now, here's something I haven't heard discussed here
I was reading an article on this issue the other day
It stated that what often happens in relationships where one partner has a higher drive (Partner A) than the other (Partner B), the high drive partner (A) will often grow furstrated with the low drive partner's (B) unwillingness to initiate or be "involved". So partner A will stop initiating, trying to force B's hand, and get him or her to initiate.
B often refuses to initiate, leading to a cycle of anger & resentment from A.
BUT...we run in to another issue here, due to the all-too-common confusion between love, affection, and sex
Not only does the sex die out in this scenario, but physical intimacy/cuddling goes out the window, too
A sometimes sees any physical affection as foreplay, and so doesn't offer it
or B is afraid any touching will lead to sex and so avoids it
And the couple loses all physical intimacy
Couples who go in to counseling at this point are often encouraged to work on touching without sex and often find they're starved for one another
Sometimes the closeness can even spark sex, while sometimes lessening it's importance. Far too may people, both men and women, need to be re-trained to sepearte physical affection & sexual contact. Pouty & I don't have much sex (in fact it's been months and this is an issue we're dealing with) but we're ALWAYS affectionate, holding & touching & petting & snuggling. So we still have closeness & intimacy.
For those dealing with this, try & remember love & sex & affection don't have to be attached & strive to hold on to the intimacy & touching. Realize the drop in sex (probably) isn't you. Encourage communication.
One BIG thing here, FAR too many people have issues with their partners pleasuring themslves. If you're not going to be in the mood and aren't willing to open your relationship, for the love of the gods let your partner pleausre him or herself, and if that means using stories such as the ones here or the occasional adult magazine, let them. My ex told me stories about women she worked with who used to brag about how infrequently they gave it to their husbands, and how if they caught those same hubbies masturbating or with a Playboy, they'd divorce them. Let's not even discuss an affair.


Ok, this rambled and probably made no sense, I will shut up now LOL

 

[Noor]

I think your ramble made perfect sense, James G 5. I will ramble a bit now.

Perhaps I live in a different world than most but sex to me with a lover is a form of communication, an intimate form that is merely part of, extension of, everything else between us. It doesn't have to be in the context of love but there does have to be a friendship, an understanding of sorts.

I don't understand people who can turn sex and sexuality on and off like a light switch.

It seems our society still uses sex as a form of currency, something you can give, get, barter, withhold in exchange for money, support, belonging, acceptance, owning, whatever....

I love sex but I prefer making love and that does not always have to include the physical act of sex. It does always include friendship, caring, and intimacy.

I have friends, who for religious reasons, do not touch for certain periods of time each month, and yet during those times you can see the love, the intimacy, the caring in their eyes, their actions, and their speech. I think this type of non-physical affection is just as important as the physical, often more so.

Things do happen to people that effect their physical body, where physical sex is no longer an option for a time, sometimes forever but it does not mean that a person is no longer a sexual being or that the person not longer has emotions or spirit.

As far as marriages and contracts, I have found so many people have unspoken assumed agreements in marriage and often it is a different understanding of these that where the problems lie regarding sex.

I know the feeling of being repulsed by a lover's touch because every touch feels like a demand for sex. I love sex, but I am not a light switch. If we can not talk, laugh, be intimate in non-physical ways, I have no interest in only a physical release, which is how I see it.

I have noticed that men who have come out of "sexless" relationships really seem to want acceptance and intimacy but use sex to get it. Maybe because wanting sex is more acceptable than what they really seem to want?

As to whether a SO has the right to withhold sex, yes, of course they do, but both parties have a responsibility to find ways to maintain the relationship.

If the relationship is bias solely on sex and providing sex on demand has been spelled out and agreed upon, then yes it is a contract that has been broken and the parties should separate if this is the case.

Nothing justifies cheating, a person's own integrity should not be based on another's actions or non-actions. If you don't want to be there, get out, fix it, whatever, but do it openly, fairly and honestly.

 

[warrior queen]

Nothing justifies cheating, a person's own integrity should not be based on another's actions or non-actions. If you don't want to be there, get out, fix it, whatever, but do it openly, fairly and honestly.

i agree with almost everything you have said.
but i must point out, that many times this issue results in only one partner being willing to put in the effort required to fix a situation, and often that inequality causes more problems.
take into account that many people consider themselves 'trapped' in relationships (because of financial reasons, or children, or whatever) and you can begin to understand why there are so many out there who disregard the moral and ethical repurcussions of cheating, and just go ahead and do it.

 

[Noor]

i agree with almost everything you have said.
but i must point out, that many times this issue results in only one partner being willing to put in the effort required to fix a situation, and often that inequality causes more problems.
take into account that many people consider themselves 'trapped' in relationships (because of financial reasons, or children, or whatever) and you can begin to understand why there are so many out there who disregard the moral and ethical repurcussions of cheating, and just go ahead and do it.

I understand why, but it is not a choice I would take, I would go without sex first. I would spend my energy on getting out of the trap.
I have seen some people use cheating as a way out of their relationships. That kind of cheating seems to hurts everyone including the cheater.

I also understand that are occasions when you may meet a person who has such a strong pull on you that you feel you must be with them. If the person that I wanted that important, then I would take the time to get out of my current relationship first, otherwise I would never know if I would have chosen them freely if I had been free to do so, or if they were merely convenient.

Okay, maybe I am nuts; I think a lot about ethics in every aspect of my life. I have spent years formally studying ethics, currently I am studying medical treatment and physician assisted suicide in terminal patients.

I haven't lead a conventional life so I don't really have societal norms to fall back on in times of stress or indecision, and I have real problems with much of current morality.

In general, my view of ethics follows somewhat Hillel's view of Torah "That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor, the rest is commentary" and cheating, a serious abuse of trust, falls under something that is hateful to me.

Noor

 

[capricious_chic]

i agree with almost everything you have said.
but i must point out, that many times this issue results in only one partner being willing to put in the effort required to fix a situation, and often that inequality causes more problems.
take into account that many people consider themselves 'trapped' in relationships (because of financial reasons, or children, or whatever) and you can begin to understand why there are so many out there who disregard the moral and ethical repurcussions of cheating, and just go ahead and do it.

People that consider themselves trapped usually don't want to solve problems for themselves. They get so fixated on what is not fair in life - that they forget that nothing in life is fair.

There really are no reasons that can justify disregarding ones own integrity by cheating. ie. I can't buy financial reasons - if money is that tight where do they find the time and money to spend on a third . Children should never be used to justify something that is so very selfish - the children will be much more hurt when it all comes to light that mommy or daddy lied to everyone for however long. It always comes to light, always. People stay together out of fear - regardless of the reason they use, it is fear of change that hold them there.

While I can logically understand why some people make the choices that they do, it doesn't mean that I have to agree with those choices or that they will illicit any sympathy from me. Simply put if one can not be honest with those around them, they are not someone I would care to know or have in my life.

The idea that just because one person "broke" the contract then it justifies the other person "breaking" it is just an excuse. End the contract with your integrity intact, because in the end that is all you have.

 

[midwestyankee]

I have noticed that men who have come out of "sexless" relationships really seem to want acceptance and intimacy but use sex to get it. Maybe because wanting sex is more acceptable than what they really seem to want?

This caught my eye, Noor.

Consider this, though it is something of a generalization. Women tend to require some degree of emotional intimacy in order to be ready for sex. Men often require the sex in order to be ready to give emotional intimacy.

In a relationship where the man is left with little or no sex, he may well be also starved for emotional intimacy. This would be one possible explanation for the phenomenon you described above.

I have the tee shirt on this one, by the way.

 

[Noor]

This caught my eye, Noor.

Consider this, though it is something of a generalization. Women tend to require some degree of emotional intimacy in order to be ready for sex. Men often require the sex in order to be ready to give emotional intimacy.

In a relationship where the man is left with little or no sex, he may well be also starved for emotional intimacy. This would be one possible explanation for the phenomenon you described above.

I have the tee shirt on this one, by the way.

Sounds possible. I just hate when you are really getting into the sex, and they go all serious and mushy on you

I hope it isn't a current t-shirt.

 

[midwestyankee]

Sounds possible. I just hate when you are really getting into the sex, and they go all serious and mushy on you

I hope it isn't a current t-shirt.

The serious and mushy part, as I vaguely recall, happens afterward.

 

[angela146]

...Consider this, though it is something of a generalization. Women tend to require some degree of emotional intimacy in order to be ready for sex. Men often require the sex in order to be ready to give emotional intimacy...

[Insert the usual disclaimer about generalizations.]

I think it's an issue of fear: women are more afraid of being hurt physically whereas men are more afraid of being hurt emotionally.

Women tend to have good emotional support systems so we don't fear the harm that can come from intimacy. We're willing to take a "risk" because we don't see it as a risk. Emotional harm is easy to deal with by leaning on friends and family.

Men, on the other hand, are not allowed to show emotion and are not allowed to seek healing for emotional damage. If a man gets hurt from emotional intimacy, what's he supposed to do about it? Go home to mommy?

On the physical side, men are less afraid of being hurt physically by a woman who gets carried away in the middle of wild sex. They feel (perhaps falsely) that they have an ability to protect themselves.

Women are very afraid of being hurt physically by men during sex. We feel (an exaggerated sense of being) vulnerable and unprotected when having sex.

[Insert another usual disclaimer about generalizations.]

If I want to show a man that it's safe to be emotionally intimate with me, getting naked and making myself vulnerable to him physically is a good start.

If a man wants to make me feel safe about having sex with him, he needs to show me that he cares about me by making himself emotionally naked and vulnerable.

(Of course, I'm into BDSM and I don't always want security or safety, either physical or emotional).

 

[Bobmi357]

I have noticed that men who have come out of "sexless" relationships really seem to want acceptance and intimacy but use sex to get it. Maybe because wanting sex is more acceptable than what they really seem to want?

I can't speak for others, but my first marriage was totally devoid of intimacy. TOTALLY.

When I left it I wanted someone that I could hold at night in the bed and would hold me back. I wanted the sex to be sure, but I wanted someone that would hug me without being asked first, or would want and accept a hug without complaint or pushing away.

I also wanted a partner in the bed room that wanted me as much as I wanted her. I wanted someone who's hands would tremble like mine do when I touch her. Someone that would desire me with the same burning ache that I feel. Perhaps its too much to ask for, life really isn't full of Scarelet O'Hara's and Rhett Butlers. Romeo and Juliet really are fictional characters, make believe, not real. And sex can't always end up with fireworks and cannons blasting.

I knew when I left my first wife exactly what I wanted. What I needed and felt I deserved. I wanted a friend, and a lover, a cuddlemate that would happily wash my back in the bath, or would relax and let me wash her hair. Perhaps it isn't really possible, but that means you shouldn't stop striving for it either.

Yes men do tend to equate sex and initmacy. But thats your fault. You women. With guys its easy to tell when he's feeling a bit horny, old mr. happy is standing up at attention. The indicators on you girls is a lot less obvious to say the least. You want cuddling, and your guy thinks you want sex. You have no obvious indicators that this is horny time. All your gizmos are hidden from view! You would think that with the human species having been around for nearly 100,000 years now, you girls would have invented a red flag or something to give us clueless guys a hint of your intentions when you want to cuddle!

But seriously, it does take time for a guy to become accustomed to a woman enough that he can read her intentions. Perhaps its unfortunate that we guys are turned on too easily while you gals seem to need to let your motors turn over a lot longer. Show a teenage boy a photo of a girl in a bikini and he's got a woody, show him a photo with some bush showing and he's cleaning up the mess and smoking a cigarette. Show a teenage girl a photo of a naked guy and she starts wondering about the birthmark on his thigh.

 

[Missingmeds]

I personally want to thank everyone that has contributed to this discussion for well thought out posts.

This is one of the more intelligent conversations on this subject that I have seen in a while on this board.

 

[warrior queen]

I can't speak for others, but my first marriage was totally devoid of intimacy. TOTALLY.

When I left it I wanted someone that I could hold at night in the bed and would hold me back. I wanted the sex to be sure, but I wanted someone that would hug me without being asked first, or would want and accept a hug without complaint or pushing away.

I also wanted a partner in the bed room that wanted me as much as I wanted her. I wanted someone who's hands would tremble like mine do when I touch her. Someone that would desire me with the same burning ache that I feel. Perhaps its too much to ask for, life really isn't full of Scarelet O'Hara's and Rhett Butlers. Romeo and Juliet really are fictional characters, make believe, not real. And sex can't always end up with fireworks and cannons blasting.

I knew when I left my first wife exactly what I wanted. What I needed and felt I deserved. I wanted a friend, and a lover, a cuddlemate that would happily wash my back in the bath, or would relax and let me wash her hair. Perhaps it isn't really possible, but that means you shouldn't stop striving for it either.

Yes men do tend to equate sex and initmacy. But thats your fault. You women. With guys its easy to tell when he's feeling a bit horny, old mr. happy is standing up at attention. The indicators on you girls is a lot less obvious to say the least. You want cuddling, and your guy thinks you want sex. You have no obvious indicators that this is horny time. All your gizmos are hidden from view! You would think that with the human species having been around for nearly 100,000 years now, you girls would have invented a red flag or something to give us clueless guys a hint of your intentions when you want to cuddle!

But seriously, it does take time for a guy to become accustomed to a woman enough that he can read her intentions. Perhaps its unfortunate that we guys are turned on too easily while you gals seem to need to let your motors turn over a lot longer. Show a teenage boy a photo of a girl in a bikini and he's got a woody, show him a photo with some bush showing and he's cleaning up the mess and smoking a cigarette. Show a teenage girl a photo of a naked guy and she starts wondering about the birthmark on his thigh.

this is actually just as much the mens' fault as the ladies.
in my first marriage, there was no distinction made whatsoever from HIM between intimacy and sex.
it got to the point that if he wanted to be in the same room as me, i KNEW he only did it because he was thinking that if he showed me he could be intimate, then it would inevitably lead to sex.
that was the way HE thought.
all i wanted (most of the time anyway) was for him to show me he cared enough about me to just BE in the same space i was.

it was horrid - the only time he kissed me, was when he felt like a bit of sex -
the only time he held my hand was when he wanted sex -
the only time he's spend a while talking to me, i mean REALLY having a conversation, was when he thought it might end up in the bedroom.

all other times, he stayed completely away from me, no intimacy, no connection whatsoever, no holding hands, no walking side-by-side, no hug just because he or i wanted one.

not only that, if i ever wanted any non-sexual contact, HE assumed it was because i was 'in the mood' and tried to take it to that level........ EVERY TIME.

and i found it happening in my second relationship also.

now that i am single again, i am wondering if there is ever going to be the possibility of being in a relationship that encompasses ALL of the differing levels of intimate contact.
i mean, is that even possible - without eventually ending up the same as my previous two?

and for the record - in both of those long-term relationships, i was always completely open and up-front about what level of intimacy i required, or would like to share with my partner - but it eventually boiled down to neither of my partners believing that being intimate without sex was a legitimate need.

 

[Noor]

The serious and mushy part, as I vaguely recall, happens afterward.

I meant when you are really getting into having a very sexually relationship, then they go all serious and mushy

 

[angela146]

this is actually just as much the mens' fault as the ladies.
in my first marriage, there was no distinction made whatsoever from HIM between intimacy and sex.
it got to the point that if he wanted to be in the same room as me, i KNEW he only did it because he was thinking that if he showed me he could be intimate, then it would inevitably lead to sex.
that was the way HE thought.
all i wanted (most of the time anyway) was for him to show me he cared enough about me to just BE in the same space i was.

it was horrid - the only time he kissed me, was when he felt like a bit of sex -
the only time he held my hand was when he wanted sex -
the only time he's spend a while talking to me, i mean REALLY having a conversation, was when he thought it might end up in the bedroom.

all other times, he stayed completely away from me, no intimacy, no connection whatsoever, no holding hands, no walking side-by-side, no hug just because he or i wanted one.

not only that, if i ever wanted any non-sexual contact, HE assumed it was because i was 'in the mood' and tried to take it to that level........ EVERY TIME.

and i found it happening in my second relationship also.

now that i am single again, i am wondering if there is ever going to be the possibility of being in a relationship that encompasses ALL of the differing levels of intimate contact.
i mean, is that even possible - without eventually ending up the same as my previous two?

and for the record - in both of those long-term relationships, i was always completely open and up-front about what level of intimacy i required, or would like to share with my partner - but it eventually boiled down to neither of my partners believing that being intimate without sex was a legitimate need.

Did it work in reverse? In other words, when you did have sex with him, did you get the intimacy you wanted? Or, did he "get his" and leave you feeling empty?

Personally, I don't mind so much that intimacy and sex are inter-related for my husband. For one thing, my sex drive is stronger than his (not by much). For another thing, it means I have a pretty reliable way of getting intimacy whenever I want it. (Although, intimacy isn't a problem for us so it's difficult to make a comparison).

I guess my real question is, why not satiate him with sex *if* it means that you get as much intimacy as you want/need? Men can be quite malliable when their sex drive is satisfied.

If the answer is that he wants sex *a lot* more often than you do, perhaps part of the problem is a seriously mismatched sex drive. That can kill a relationship all by itself.

 

[midwestyankee]

I meant when you are really getting into having a very sexually relationship, then they go all serious and mushy

I suppose that could be the case, but I don't have any personal experience with which to judge.

 

[warrior queen]

Did it work in reverse? In other words, when you did have sex with him, did you get the intimacy you wanted? Or, did he "get his" and leave you feeling empty?

Personally, I don't mind so much that intimacy and sex are inter-related for my husband. For one thing, my sex drive is stronger than his (not by much). For another thing, it means I have a pretty reliable way of getting intimacy whenever I want it. (Although, intimacy isn't a problem for us so it's difficult to make a comparison).

I guess my real question is, why not satiate him with sex *if* it means that you get as much intimacy as you want/need? Men can be quite malliable when their sex drive is satisfied.

If the answer is that he wants sex *a lot* more often than you do, perhaps part of the problem is a seriously mismatched sex drive. That can kill a relationship all by itself.

no, it didn't work in reverse.

i got to the point where if i wanted to just be held or have a hug, i had to weigh up whether it was worth having sex (regardless of the fact that i didn't really want it right then) just to hopefully get the intimacy i needed.

but usually after he (and i'm talking both ex's here) got his bit of touching, sleep would follow, and then an intimacy void until the next time.

it actually turned me from a woman who wanted sex several times a day, to one who avoided it - because to me, the 'closeness' had gone.

 

[angela146]

no, it didn't work in reverse.

i got to the point where if i wanted to just be held or have a hug, i had to weigh up whether it was worth having sex (regardless of the fact that i didn't really want it right then) just to hopefully get the intimacy i needed.

but usually after he (and i'm talking both ex's here) got his bit of touching, sleep would follow, and then an intimacy void until the next time.

it actually turned me from a woman who wanted sex several times a day, to one who avoided it - because to me, the 'closeness' had gone.

It sounds like both ex's were passive-aggressive. One way of avoiding that is to hook up with a guy who is strong enough to withstand being "pushed".

When you push a guy's buttons, if he withdraws and acts wounded it's not a good sign. On the other hand, if he smiles serenely and starts toying with you, or pushing your buttons or whatever, it's a sign of strength.

If a guy has to "sneak in under the radar" when he wants sex, (as opposed to being direct) he will probably have trouble being intimate.

Strong men generally are more willing and able to share their feelings.

 

[warrior queen]

It sounds like both ex's were passive-aggressive. One way of avoiding that is to hook up with a guy who is strong enough to withstand being "pushed".

When you push a guy's buttons, if he withdraws and acts wounded it's not a good sign. On the other hand, if he smiles serenely and starts toying with you, or pushing your buttons or whatever, it's a sign of strength.

If a guy has to "sneak in under the radar" when he wants sex, (as opposed to being direct) he will probably have trouble being intimate.

Strong men generally are more willing and able to share their feelings.

all i ever wanted was a guy who understood that there are times when i just need to be 'connected'.

not sex - just a hug, or a brush on my hand on his way past, a kiss just 'because', maybe a conversation or two.

i have a very high sex-drive, so it's not like they actually go without - but if i'm not going to get any other form of closeness, then i am going to start resenting the sex. simple.

what's the point of being in a relationship, if the only time it feels like you are, is during sex?

i'd rather be alone, thankyou.

 

[angela146]

all i ever wanted was a guy who understood that there are times when i just need to be 'connected'.

Yes... This is one of those things that requires some emotional strength from a guy. Let's face it, being in the same room with a woman especially touching her is a turn-on for most men (OK, well the whole world is a turn on for some men but...). So, when the connectedness puts him in the mood for sex, he has to shut that down in order to attend to your needs.

not sex - just a hug, or a brush on my hand on his way past, a kiss just 'because', maybe a conversation or two.

And even if it starts out that way, the vary touch or hug can arouse him and lead him to want sex... despite his not having it in mind in the first place...

It kind of leads to a paranoid feeling that all touching leads to sex.

I'm not suggesting that we need to accept this from the men in our lives. In fact, I'm suggesting that a good strong man is able to set it aside... The idea is to find a guy whose like that...

Gentlemen: The line forms here...

i have a very high sex-drive, so it's not like they actually go without - but if i'm not going to get any other form of closeness, then i am going to start resenting the sex. simple.

what's the point of being in a relationship, if the only time it feels like you are, is during sex?

i'd rather be alone, thankyou.

This sort of gets back to the original topic of the thread: there's a big difference between saying "no" versus saying "not right now".

 

[warrior queen]

getting back to the original topic....

i was the one being denied sex - because he thought that i should not expect to have any other form of closeness as a result, or before.

so, as a high-libido person, i was being shunned completely because i wanted to have my hand held sometimes as well.

personally, i call this behaviour cruel, in the worst way, and i really don't care why he felt he couldn't do it, it was completely unfair.

that, and not communicating with me, has caused a long-term relationship to irretrievably break down, and my children are getting hurt in the process.

it's not that i don't love him any more - i still care very deeply - but i will not live without some forms of sexual contact.

and so i leave.
and yes, i have been unbelievably tempted to have an affair, and it would serve my ex right if i had.
you can't just expect that your partner will be perfectly happy with your decision NOT to have sex anymore - it [most often] doesn't work that way.

 

[done_got_old]

So many people use sex as a commodity to be traded. Many of my friends (50+) women have always done this. Many of these women didn't/don't enjoy sex, so they want something for 'putting out'.

That's just the take from a perfect 10 who loves sex!!

 

[warrior queen]

So many people use sex as a commodity to be traded. Many of my friends (50+) women have always done this. Many of these women didn't/don't enjoy sex, so they want something for 'putting out'.

That's just the take from a perfect 10 who loves sex!!

in my case, it was my ex who traded sex as the commodity - if he gave me any form of intimacy, then i was expected to give him sex as the trade-off.

eventually, sex loses it's appeal, even for someone as highly-sexed as i am.

and then you move on to other things - like questioning what brought you together, why you're still in the relationship, yada, yada, yada.......
and then one day when you finally decide you've had it up to here, and you announce your intention to leave, suddenly it's all "but honey, you KNOW i love you!"

yeah?
well, try showing it once in a while.