Why Only 7 Members And 3 Stories?

I find it very curious that this experience has only 7 members and 3 stories. To have a husband walk out is not rare at all nowadays. I conclude that that many EP members have had this experience happen to them, but decline to share it.

I am very interested in this experience because my marriage is troubled. While there are no sexual problems at present, when our youngest child was born, my wife ordered me to move into the guest room where I remain to this day. She then began a 5 year sex strike, whose existence she has heatedly denied. An enduring problem is that when it comes to right and wrong and how to raise children, she and I are not on the same page. We come from very different religious and family traditions. She believes in attachment parenting, which I believe is a rationalisation for overindulging one's children. In recent months, there has been an uneasy truce but the fur could resume flying at any time.

Twice last decade, outside parties became so indignant at either me or my wife or how we raise our children that one or both of us was assaulted. I have raised this issue in writing with several professionals, including marriage counselors. No one has acknowledged my complaints in any way because in the country I live in, domestic violence is silently assumed to be solely something men do to women. Another silent assumption is that married middle class mothers are always moral, always know what's best. The reaction to men who complain of domestic violence is "this does not compute. ERROR."

A men's rights activist very recently told me that I am on the losing side of something called the "Duluth model." It supposedly permeates contemporary social work. The Duluth model smells to me like a vulgarization of the radical feminism of a generation ago.

I believe that many men in my situation would walk out. Let me explain why I will not do that. First, and as I have already stated, there are no sexual issues in my marriage. Also, I know that if I were to leave, my wife would get 98% of the sympathy in our social set. My situation would be sufficiently awkward that I would have to move to another city and start a new life. I am far enough along in life that I would rather not do that. Also, if I were to walk out, there is a fair chance that my ex would practice some degree of Parental Alienation, and damage my relation with our children, especially if I were to move to another city. I think I could remarry easily, because the number of single women my age far outnumbers the single men who have any business remarrying.

My bottom line is, barring substance abuse, criminal conviction, infidelity, or sexual disaster, I believe that marriage is for life, for better or worse. That's what the word "commitment" means.
deleted deleted
26-30
3 Responses Jul 16, 2010

"Women usually initiate divorce, but the reason is his irresponsibility or brutality." No, I disagree entirely. The stats show violence is present in only a small fraction of divorces. And male infidelity is not usually the cause. Male infidelity is overestimated because of unscientific surveys that oversample the very horny; female infidelity is hidden by women's craftiness, so it's underestimated. I think men taking their wives for granted is by no stretch of the imagination more common than women taking their husbands for granted. Men are more likely to put up with it. The blame-it-on-men interpretation of female-initiated divorce is rejected by Langley. Women divorce because they are no longer "in love" and they want to get that high again. It is in large part a biological phenomenon related to a stew of body chemicals including neurotransmitters, a phenomenon independent of the husband's treatment of her. According to Langley, divorces are typically preceded by the husband trying very hard to please the wife and the wife feeling a combination of guilt and contempt. I really think it's high time we move away from the dichotomy of viewing abandoned wives as victims but abandoned husbands as getting what they deserve. Frankly there is a certain animal quality to a lot of female divorce. Very often it involves a woman being caught up in sexual affairs with men of dramatically lesser character than her husband but who are able to spark the lust that she no longer feels for her mate.<br />
<br />
As I said, from the data I've seen no evidence that the age of clitoricentrism has brought an increase in female ******* in encounters as opposed to solo exploration. If anything female ******* seem to be down. "only one American woman in 4 reported regular *******." That's not correct. Masters and Johnson and Hite have given such numbers but they were out on a limb. In Elizabeth Lloyd's meta-analysis, 1 in 4 was the number for women who orgasmed EVERY time they had intercourse, with a clear majority orgasming most of the time. (Of course, clitoricentrists with their usual level of integrity have cited Lloyd's every time number as her ever or regularly number. As I've said, their agenda is for oral sex to replace intercourse as the primary sexual activity. In Janus and Janus, a whopping total of 18% of women preferred oral sex over intercourse for achieving ******.) It bears noting that the proportion of men who ****** every time is well below 100%. The Frenchmen were honest enough to come in at 48% in their big national sex survey. But only 1 in 4 wives reporting regular *******? That was far from the case in Kinsey, and there's no reason to believe that was even the case in the Victorian era. You seem to have forgotten information that I've posted previously in our discussions. I'm going to write a story on Masters and Johnson at some point. They made contributions but they do not deserve to be treated as gods. A large portion of the sex research of the past few decades has consisted of uncovering and correcting the many errors of M&J. Some are howlers, like impotence is primarily a psychological phenomenon. You should see the critique of M&J's astounding treatment of circumcision at http://www.circumstitions.com/Sexuality.html#m&j. I think Hartman and Fithian operating at the same time were better sex experts than M&J.<br />
<br />
Women very typically try to control their husbands. If they succeed, they defeat their own purposes, because then the man becomes a boring wuss in her eyes, and the contribution of the woman's own psyche to her sexual gratification --it's not all about technique alone--is undermined. Feminism undermines men's willingness to stand up to women.<br />
<br />
"I don't hear talk any more of sexual refusal." Good for you, but it's a bigger issue than ever. The mostly male I Live In A Sexless Marriage group on EP is huge.<br />
<br />
"At the end of the day, men have only their inadequate self-education to blame for their misery." The facts are being covered up precisely because they don't reflect well on women and talking about anything of that nature is politically incorrect.<br />
<br />
"I work with young people, and can tell you that I never hear classic feminist hostility from the mouths of under 25s." That's encouraging to hear.

I've posted many times on EP about the abandonment stats and you're the first person who has expressed doubt. If you look it up you'll find I'm right. According to Langley, who spent years researching her two books on Women's Infidelity, 70 to 75% of US divorces are initiated by the wife. I read somewhere it's about the same in the UK. What I personally hear about is in full accord with these stats. And it's not brand new. I saw an essay back in the 1990s by a professor who stated John Locke had it wrong; women are the abandoning gender. I saw a quote from as far back as the 1920s--wish I had saved it--in which Clarence Darrow said many divorces were caused by the wife abandoning the husband because of sexual dissatisfaction. I don't have the data for this yet, but I know the dramatic rise of divorce in the West earlier in our lifetimes coincided with the onset of modern feminism. I suspect that rise was overwhelmingly driven by the increase in wives abandoning their husbands. <br />
<br />
If what you encounter goes against this, it reminds me of my experience when I was in my 20s. As my friends got married, in all but one case the wife was older than the husband. If I had not known the statistical data to the contrary, I could have concluded this was the new norm. Sometimes what we see and hear is aberrant.<br />
<br />
The fact that this data is kept from men is criminal. Men are told that they have a "commitment problem." No, to the contrary, women have a problem with being trustworthy enough to deserve men's commitment under the present circumstances in which the law and the culture favor the accuse-,abandon-,and plunder-wife. Despite the lack of an effort to warn men, some men are aware of what they face in this respect plus the rampant sexual refusal by Western wives. The decline in marriage has been hailed by misandristic feminists as a deserved rejection of men by women. As usual, they have things upside down. It is men who are losing interest in marrying, not women, and it's a rational trend.<br />
<br />
By the way, what's the Duluth model?

"Twice last decade, outside parties became so indignant at either me or my wife or how we raise our children that one or both of us was assaulted." I don't exactly understand what you're saying.<br />
<br />
"To have a husband walk out is not rare at all nowadays." It's a lot more rare than a wife walking out, by a 3 to 1 margin. Michelle Langley is the rare candid woman writer. She has pointed out that women's intense seeking after commitment from men does not mean that the women themselves are seriously disposed toward commitment. She has pointed out that just like male pla<x>yers seduce and discard, many women play a game of marry and discard. In my opinion, the latter form of discarding is FAR worse.<br />
<br />
I sympathize with you.