The chapters in section 2 are a bit easier a read, I've found. If u think that's too fast I can slow it down .

As to the WSSS lil... maybe it was from enmeshment... but maybe not. It sounds like it is something you COULD achieve again, but from a place of healthy interaction.


Looking forward to u joining is Herf!

And w_n, sorry you couldn't get the book. Feel free to comment if the mood strikes you:)

w_n, I owe a "pay-it-forward" book to the cosmos. believer sent me HTIYLWTAI. If you are comfortable sending me your address, I could send you a copy of TPM.

Then it would be "tag, yer it" and you owe a pay-it-forward.

Sort of like the Cheese Touch. (Any readers of Diary of a Wimpy Kid here?)

Should I go stick my finger in a light socket?

Aw, Jane! While I'm totally on board with paying it forward and the generosity with which your gift is offered, I am not comfortable sharing my address. I've done it before with varying results (from pleasant to horrifying) and it makes me feel a little sick inside that it's still out there with some folks.

I hope you understand and thank you again for the kind offer.

Yes, I totally understand. It was just an offer, not a demand.

I guess I've still got the Cheese touch then. *sigh*

I hope he discusses the WSS more in coming chapters. I'm up to Chapter 5 and so far, kind of understanding everything.

His take on a low desire spouse is certainly interesting. He gives a great explanation of why some spouses start out having lots of sex and end up not wanting it. And it has nothing to do with sex drive or past experiences.

He talks about Carol, who is low drive, but didn't start out that way. Turns out that she had low self esteem and anxiety. She had lots of sex at first to entice her husband. When she was married and more secure, she felt like she had to serve him.

Later on, she got resentful.

It's much different than most of the books about desire.

I have experienced WSS many times. I think the loss of ego of the experience is more akin to a spiritual experience than to the dysfunction of co-dependency and enmeshment.

Schnarch ditches the term WSS in Intimacy & Desire. He devotes an entire chapter to the importance of f-cking. I mean no offence by using that term - it's the one he uses and he uses it very deliberately. He is not talking about generic sex or the many euphemisms for it.

Lil, it makes sense to me that WSS would disappear post-D. Trust is essential.

“before a woman will be thoroughly indecent with you, she needs to determine that you are essentially decent.” - [link]

Ha! Got the internet working! I may not be able to post tomorrow, we'll see


Chapter 5 – Sexual Desire: Who Wants to Want?

Chapter 5 begins with a discussion of how we view desire. How we have switched, as a society, from viewing low desire as a good thing, to seeing it as a bad thing, as evidence of some sort of dysfunction.



He identifies several problems that arise from seeing sex as ‘natural’

Human sexual desire is typically thought to be composed of 3 characteristics: Basic programming to reproduce, relieving tension and fulfilling a craving for sexual gratification (we seek for pleasure). However, he identifies several other aspects of sexual desire that affect sexual potential and desire. He also explores the effects our different ‘brains’ (reptilian, mammalian, neocortex) have on desire.
Marriage is a system, a collection of processes. It’s complexity creates a context for the desire that we feel.


Sexual desire in a marriage system is complex, inherently.

By its nature, the person with the lower drive will control sex – always.

Because of the nature of marriage, we often fall into the strategy of not wanting to want.



When spouses are Emotionally Fused – their partner matters so much to them that it creates fear – a fear of losing the acceptance of the partner, or of losing the partner altogether. To protect ourselves we don’t want to want our partner. We often mistake this as indifference, when actually it is a reaction to the importance we place on our partner.
There are 4 options available at this point: withdraw emotionally, engulf your partner, be engulfed, or raise your level of differentiation.

Chapter 5 had reassuringly familiar concepts. He discussed the fact that the brain is our largest sexual organ. The brain is made up of the Reptilian brain the mammalian brain (cortex) and the neocortex. The reptilian and cortex are not the parts of the brain that we are capable of utilising for differentiation.



He 'decodes' the infamous ILUBINILWU. The first love actually means caring, and wishing well for, while the second love translates to wanting. So it becomes "I care for you, I just don't want you anymore.

I didnt take offense

I had a look at the link and it was interesting. I read the quote out to DH and he agreed it was most likely true.

I have broken one of Schnarchs rules - I have been reading bits of the book to DH. I want him to know what I am doing, and where I am coming from and the reality is he will never willingly open a book, especially not a relationship book. While he agrees with what I tell him he makes it very obvious that he isnt interested. He said "MB told us we had a great marriage because we did their stuff and now your telling me we don't". He also makes jokes about what I am saying - uses humour to deflect what I am saying. I am all for fun and laughter but when I am trying to have a serious conversation about something important to me, I feel discouraged and reluctant to continue.

Yes I see the correlation with the couple in chapter 5. I just dont know how to change this dance.

The reason I am sharing this is because I think the trust stopping WSS concept, is true. I am finding it very hard to express anything about the loss of the WSS because it means I am bringing up the A. His hates me bringing up the A. Frankly I think DH is perfectly happy with things as they are and doesnt understand why I feel there is a problem.

:frustration:

lil, I wonder if one of the reasons he is uncomfortable talking about it is because he knows that his actions (even though you have forgiven them) are the catalyst for the problem. Granted, stbx and I had big problems in this area way before my A.....and then during hysterical bonding it was like I had the H I had always longed for. But in talking about it, he said that all that uninhibited, assertive, hang from the rafters passion was really a desperate attempt to get me back and be good enough.....so it actually for him was the worst time of his life. And I couldn't really argue with that - even though hearing it crushed me - because I knew I was the one who had caused that.

I think for a couple that has had amazing sexual life before an A....it really is possible to have swing from the chandeliers after (call me Pollyanna but I do). But I am sure it takes a long time and it can;t be forced. Our problem was that we never had it to begin with.

Heya Lil - couple of thoughts.



Don't worry, I've broken this rule as well...



I think that MB has laid a great foundation for our marriage, but I don't think greatness is ever actually achieved... not in the sense that we're done and good. There is always room for growth and improvement. I think that MB was a great starting place for me, but there is more than just MB - just meeting ENs and avoiding LBs. I think that is what Schnarch is delving into - the personal growth that marriage spurs within us.

It happens whether we like it or not - we're never really stagnant.



I'm gonna go out on a limb here - and this may be sacrilegious or just flat out wrong, I don't know... but trust works two ways. The other party 'earn's' our trust by being trustworthy, but we chose to give that trust. Sometimes we give that trust too easily and get burned.... so we refuse to give it again - perhaps not even consciously but we do - as a means of protecting ourselves.

So while your H can do all he can to regain your trust, it isn't going to help any if you aren't able to eventually open up and allow that trust to exist again, which can be scary because you can get hurt again.

This was in Chapter 5 of PM:


So the trust is different, not as open and not as free - but maybe it isn't your husband you should be trusting... It is yourself you should be trusting. Trusting that if something bad happens again, you will be able to see it and overcome it. Trusting in your ability to self-soothe regardless of what his actions in the future may be.



I find the most interesting thing about this book is that you don't need your spouse to be on board to affect a change. By YOU becoming more differentiated, by YOU being more able to trust yourself, by YOU focusing on your own personal growth - change will come.

I could be way off base - but it's just what came to me.

I agree 100%. It even works when you don't have a partner. I've been changing and trying to be more self-validating. I feel much more content.

Vibrissa, I like what you've written about trust. Especially for a woman who expresses herself through her feminine energy, being able to be vulnerable and open is central to her sexuality..

I understand that, and yet I find it annoying. I know he had an affair, I want to be able to refer to it without being concerned that he thinks I am holding it over him. It happened, it sucked, now I need to be able to honestly talk about it as if it happened to someone else so that I can find out where my block is. I dont need him to apologise, or even speak. If he really felt an urge he could say "I know, I did'nt know, you've said that." I am over the side stepping.

I like that, I am going to use it

I read this this morning so I have had all day to chew on it and yes, you are completely right. I dont trust me, and to an extent I don't trust DH. I am working on the self soothing, I am not sure how long that is going to take
I can feel some change within but not enough. I dont understand how the book can suggest it can be done by one when you have exercises like The Hug - but more on that in my report, next post.

Chapter 6 (Section 2)



Big wooh! on that statement. I could actually feel the tension as soon as I read it. Have been working on reliving it all day. Dr.S talks about how anxiety is contagious, and when in proximity to an anxious person we have the choice of taking on the same anxiety, separating ourselves from the person or differentiating and centring ourselves so we are aware but do not share it. An example is how when you pick up a fractious child and you are calm, they will calm down with little more than a hug, but if you are tense, no amount of cuddling will settle them.

The Hug

I dont entirely understand The Hug. At first it seemed like an exercise to be done to help spouses feel each other, but then the example couple where told to not do it. The H because he felt forced into it and pursued, the W because she had FOO issues making her willing to chase someone in order to be held.

I did try it out with DH yesterday. We got over 4 Mississippi without any jolting. Typically I am the Hugger and he is the Jolter. He commented that he was unsure of his part in it as he has little desire for hugging, he couldn't grope me, and hasnt suppose to lean on me and in fact was suppose to focus on himself making me superfluous to the moment

I liked the hug - obviously I would, I like hugging. I did realise that I am hugging him to fill my own needs. Going back to MB, that would be a no-no because he is to fill my EN's, I am not to fill both of ours. I think my stepping away from helping him fill my needs might help me move towards differentiation. I am going to miss my hugs tho

On the positive side, after The Hug exercise we had SF and he really did make a huge effort to make more skin contact with me, more hug type holding during it, than the more usual emphasis on erogenous spots.

If we do The Hug again,or any hugging, I need to remember the very few steps Dr.S gives: stand on your own two feet, relax, listen to your inner voice and note it trying to discourage you, note where in your body you have tension.

I stayed up way too late reading last night. You know what's funny? Beginning with the very first couple, I felt that tension between the "outside" voices saying "OH MY! For shame you hoochie mama!" and my own inner voice saying "How cool is THAT?!?" The tug of war between what a "normal" woman would think and what I was taught and my own desires and the fact that I really think when God wrote "the marriage bed is undefiled" He meant it.

Not sure how specific I will get here....but let's just say I have figured out I must be pretty uninhibited. I love being that way, but I do sometimes let that outside force make me question whether or not it is "proper." I look forward to shutting that outside voice up some.....and not just about sex.

As you get farther along, HRF, you will see that is why a ONS or affair is easier than a long term marriage. Often in a marriage, a wife cares too much about her partner and feels that he will be judgmental if she lets herself go wild. It's also why sex is sometimes better when a couple goes away to a hotel for a weekend.

BTW - Where is this place? Every time I want to post here, I have to look Vibrissa up and look at her posts. Does that make sense?

Book reviews, under marriage resources

Chapter 7.

Vibrissa was right, it does get easier to read in the second section.

'Open your eyes'. As a rule we seem to think closing our eyes during kissing and SF is more romantic than eyes open. Only problem I have with eyes open is that since SF is normally at night, and since it's winter here there is no natural light, and neither of us want to get out of bed after, so we have the lights off. I tried keeping my eyes open, but all I could see was an outline LOL. If we have SF in the morning, I am normally still mostly asleep so keep my eyes closed out of tiredness. I am not sure how much 'seeing' one gets out of blurry morning eyes


Foreplay can be seen by both spouses as 'ticking a box', or 'just doing your job' leading to resentment by both spouses. I agreed with that. I sometimes feel if I had a jolly good snog first, you could skip the foreplay altogether. I get more turned on by deep passionate kissing than by feeling we're just doing the steps from initiation to climax.

Kissus interuptus. Technique whereby spouses kiss for a period, pull back and look at each other, then resume kissing. Requires similar focus as The Hug : relax, listen to your inner voice and note it trying to discourage you, note where in your body you have tension. Smiling and a friendly "Hi!" is allowed Allows you to see, and be seen.

Communal genitals. Alas one of my favourite sayings has to go: "Men, you do not own your penis's, they belong to your wife. You have peeing rights only".
Spouses may feel that if they are not going to have sex with anyone else then half their spouses genital 'belong' top them, therefore they MUST be made available to the other on demand. Genitals are not property, we own our own body.

Pg 202 in my book said "dont kid yourself that just reading this book will free you or your marriage from the shackles of fusion".

Well, darn


Tried The Hug again last night after explaining to DH that I wasnt going to ask for it. He kind of hunched down and folded himself over me. That was different.

I am getting deeper into the book now, and I can see that it is very timely for me. And not because of sex....but because there are some things I need to learn. Some things that I definitely need to learn.

Between this and the "sop chasing your partner away" thread, I think I am stumbling on some very important stuff.

Been trying to use differentiation when H says something I don;t like, so I can hear what he is saying without letting emotion cloud it. Apparently I am crap at it because he says I come over as stoned and indifferent

I am up to chapter 9, but won;t post my thoughts to date, because I am interested in hearing what others are getting from it

Going to share??

The whole idea of self-soothing is very important. Because I cannot get into the habit (again) of needing reassurance to feel secure. It's needy. I also need to unlearn what years of tiptoeing taught me. If I am....ME, then the risk of opening up is reduced because the success of that opening up isn't determined by whether or not I get a positive response. The opening up itself is the "achievement."

That's a start.