The person with the lower sex drive should be the one to initiate

[QuentinWinters]

just read this on another thread where a woman is talking about lack of sex with DH

what gets me with these threads is that if the man wants it more, the man is in the wrong and if the woman wants it more, the man is in the wrong

I've been thinking about this in the context of my own background - married to exH who wanted sex more than me, been in relationship with partner who wanted less.

I think the difference is that exH used to nag/pester/sulk about sex whereas I just accepted the situation where I was the higher sex partner and was happy to let partner initiate

So I wondered if part of the issue with difference in response re:men and women is to do with who initiates - with higher libido male partners being more likely to pester, which is unacceptable.

AIBU?

RyanBegarasTeeth I understood the any sign= raring to go as meaning, the moment the lower libido partner gives the slightest sign (as simple as a kiss that's more than just a peck, or a hug that lasts a few seconds longer than usual, or even just a comment on the other person looking nice), the higher libido partner interprets that as, "They're telling me they're 100% in the mood for sex! Let's do it now!"

Which obviously easily leads to disappointment, resentment, fear of showing any affection in case it's misinterpreted...

But maybe I misunderstood what the OP meant by that expression.

Thats exactly what I meant

I think it's possible to initiate without nagging or coercing.

I may lean over and start to spoon suggestively or whatever. If OH says he doesn't want it, I roll back and say no problem. Same as him, he tries it on sometimes, sometimes I've receptive other times not.

As long as you have trust that the other respects your decisions then it's totally unnecessary to assign one person as the initiator.

In a loving respectful relationship these things aren't issues.

I repeat- intimacy and erotic attraction are about communication and affection and a genuinely connected shared loving respectful life together. Each person in the relationship should prioritise making time for the other. Want to stay connected through affection and talking together. Sex will flow naturally from that sense if connection, that bond. It's perfectly possible to work around mismatched libidos within such a framework. It is also about compromise- it is about sometimes going with the other person's wishes for sex, because it will make them happy, because it will make you feel happy and more connected, because you value your relationship

If you are in a sexual relationship and you really do not want intimate or sexual contact with your partner then you should be prepared to explore why that is. How can either of you be happy with that situation? Unless you discuss it and decide you both just want to be very close platonic partners

joystir59 I absolutely agree with you. The 'framework of intimacy', as you so well put it, is what has kept my marriage alive through some real difficulties. Communication really is key.

Unless you agreed to get married on the basis you would not have much sex anyone who is not prepared to have it in marriage is misleading the other person. Now they might have good reasons but they cannot expect the other person necessarily to find that tolerable and divorce might result (or adultery).

I agree with joy - people not wanting sex and not having sex other than say once a month should ideally agree to talk about it, perhaps go together to a sex or other therapist unless they married on the basis there would be no or very little sex.

In a loving respectful relationship these things aren't issues.
That's such a good point