As for your take on this whole thing, Julia, I think "indelicate" comes to mind. I shared this story with you in hopes that you could provide some constructive criticism, not castrate me and treat me like a child (I already get that at home, thank you).

Understand that my criticism of you isn't in the ultimate advice you give, but rather your heavy-handed method of dishing it out. The pill is so hard to swallow because half of it seems to be over-critical filler.

On the other hand, I've seen this basic fact used as a shield against reasonable argument and responsibility. If I say "I think we should..." that statement is open to debate. But if my partner disagrees and I suddenly accuse her of "disrespecting my feelings" by questioning or disagreeing with what I said, that effectively puts my position beyond debate. Is that fair? Looks like a sure-fire recipe for deadlock to me. If you can't argue with feelings, and if both partners' feelings are equally important and relevant, then what happens when feelings collide?

Feelings are hard to steer - but so are ships. In both cases, some navigation, and extra expenditure of fuel, are needed to avoid disastrous collisions.

Sometimes feelings ARE wrong - i.e., when one partner insists on treating the other's mistakes as deliberate acts of hate. Feelings, however strong or deep, should not be used as excuses to avoid responsibility, or to avoid treating others as equals.

Sometimes feelings ARE wrong - i.e., when one partner insists on treating the other's mistakes as deliberate acts of hate. Feelings, however strong or deep, should not be used as excuses to avoid responsibility, or to avoid treating others as equals.

Precisely. As I said, we can certainly argue with what people DO as a result of their feelings. If they are using them as a club or as an excuse to avoid responsibility, or to continue on a course of action or inaction that is counterproductive, injurious or nasty we can of course say they are wrong to do that!

My point is that you can't indict the feelings, per se. People are going to feel what they feel no matter what, and if you want to work in reality, you have to understand and accept their feelings as a given, no matter how bizarre or ugly YOU think they are.

You can try to change a person's feelings with talk and explanation, and you can condemn a person for the way they handle their feelings or the way they behave as a result, but you CANNOT say, "Your feelings are morally wrong."

When feelings are on a collision course, decisions should be made on the basis of what ACTIONS are appropriate or inappropriate as human beings in relation to other human beings, not on whose feelings are stronger.

In other words, it is okay to be disgusted by your partner's insistence on doing somthing you've asked them not to, but it is NOT okay to, for example, beat them because they pissed you off. Whether or not a "dirty look" is out of bounds is debatable, of course. I'd advise against it because it poisons the interpersonal water and makes resolution of an emotional impasse all that much more difficult, but I suppose a case can be made for "allowing honest expression" or something.

My own marital problems were the opposite: my husband is the emotional guy who expressed his negative emotions too freely, and I suppressed mine too severely. I know what it's like to be on Harry's end of things, but I also wouldn't like to advise spouses of either gender to be like me, keeping their mouths shut just for the sake of a false sense of "peace."

Harry, I'm sorry you felt "castrated" by my honest examination of your situation. I felt I was being upfront with you and with the other readers here, bringing out elements of your situation that would be hard for you to discover or acknowledge on your own.

The last thing I did was treat you as a child! A child would be coddled and soothed and reassured that everything was Just Fine. I thought, in fact, that you were an intelligent adult who could handle what I had to say, in spite of the fact that in the end I couldn't "validate" you. I still think that.

I know you will take from this what you can use and discard the rest. Others will absorb what THEY can use and dismiss what's irrelevant to them. This way everybody's got some information and some interesting concepts to work with, whether or not they -- or you -- ultimately accept or apply any of it. In reference to your confusion about how to approach your wife, I understood you to originally say that your wife had only said "don't just do it without asking" in reference to much more intimate sexual activities, not in reference to asking for hugs and kisses outside the bedroom. Explicit sexual activity and daily expressions of affection are two different emotional situations and (in my view, anyway) two different sets of "rules" for them are understandable and legit.

If this is not the case, though, if your wife has also recently said to you that you have to ask for permission for mere hugs, and then objects this strenuously when you do, I agree that she is giving you unconscionably conflicting signals, and you have every right to call her on this (the signals, not the feelings behind them).

But another rule of thumb you might want to take into consideration is that the most recent request your loved one makes of you in regard to such things is the one you should take as the literal "last word." Things change, feelings change, people change. This is allowed (but not every other week, of course).

Again, I'm sorry if you were hurt by the honesty of my reply. But again I say that I think you're man enough to take it and make your life better as time goes on.

By the way: Nobody can "castrate" you with words unless you LET them. People can wound your feelings, sure, but they can't demolish you without your permission. You're very bravely looking for the truth, Harry (no matter how much that search might hurt in a given moment) and in my view that's a very MANLY thing to do.

That is one important point: that asking for a hug, a kiss, sex, etc. can be meaningless or it can be full of emotional value. For many women, it's easier to turn off the responses than to summon them on request.

That is a hook for the man to get into. Actually, it's basic seduction strategy, that you identify what the woman is holding back and address it.

And it's also a sign of hope. Emotional exchange can be worked on. It's a problem. As you hear over and over, for many men, it's the lack of knowing what is going on that frustrates. If in stereotypical ways, men need to solve problems, nothing annoys men more than a problem that won't give up a clue about how it can be solved.

In the short term, this is true, and we are right to judge each other, and ourselves, by our words and actions, not by our thoughts. But in the long term, if the same feelings must be concealed, glossed over, or suppressed on a regular basis, in order to avoid wrong actions, then it is time to reexamine the feelings themselves, and possibly take some action, or some thoughful reassessment, to change the feelings (or what causes them) so that they are more in line with one's real interests in the real world.

Example: Anger and frustration are inevitable, to some degree, and I simply cannot act on them as they happen without thought; but if I am angry and frustrated ALL THE TIME, then perhaps I need to reassess my wants, priorities, and/or expectations, and figure out what exactly is making me so. Do I expect too much of my partner, my job, or the Universe? Do I expect the impossible? What must I give up to get what I expect, and is that a good bargain? Have I learned the wrong responses or coping mechanisms? Am I channeling my energies in the right direction? Do I really need what I've thought I need all my life? Should I change my strategy for getting what I need or want?

In Narcotics Anonymous there is a saying: "You're not responsible for your disease, but you are responsible for your recovery." If your feelings are a disease in your life, preventing you from living and enjoying life on its own terms, then you are responsible for identifying the disease, and taking corrective action.

My contention was that it is totally useless to tell someone ELSE that they have to reform their emotions in order to solve YOUR problem with them.

That's part of the Narcotics Anonymous theory, too, isn't it? That no one and nothing can genuinely alter a man's feelings and actions until HE is willing to change?

You can give other people reasons and exhortations up the wazoo, but until THEY willingly do the internal work you're alluding to, their feelings and behaviors will not change. You'll be beating your head against the wall AND adding pointless negativity to the relationship.

That's why I say that we shouldn't be wasting our time saying to each other, "Stop feeling those feelings." A husband shouldn't waste his time saying to his wife, "You should want to have sex with me," and a wife shouldn't waste her time telling her husband that sex "shouldn't be that important" to him. Things are what they are.

The solution to the problems we have in dealing with other people's emotions is not to sit around bitching and moaning to ourselves about their "wrong" feelings, and essentially just hoping that they'll straighten up and fly right (the way we want them to). Racking up Righteousness Points in your own mind -- no matter how righteous you might actually be -- will do exactly J.A.C.K. to solve your problem.

All we can do when confronted with another person's problematic emotions (or lack of them) is to take another look at ourselves, OUR reactions, and what WE might be able to do that could alter that person's experience and outlook enough to make them look inward also.

Just yelling at them to "fix" themselves because their feelings aren't what you think they should be isn't going to do the trick.

You have previosly claimed that you write this blog from experience and that your life is a case-in-point for us husbands who ain't gettin' any. The point being that your sex life eventually "came around." So, what did your husband change about himself that made you want to come out of your sex-less funk? Did anything *he* did affect your feelings or emotions regarding having sex with him?

Let's say, for the sake of discussion, that he did make some changes in his behavior and, again, for the sake of argument, his change in behavior had little or nothing to do with your sexuality being revived. Have you asked him if this change in attitude/behavior helped him deal with his frustations along the way?

My marriage is perfect, but I'm sure Harry would like to know the answer to this, right, Harry? Just kidding, I'm dying to know if going through the incredibly difficult process of reshaping my attitude and behavior is worth squat. If it in any way encourages my wife to begin enjoying sex with me, great, but I would at least hope it helps make my life with her somewhat more bearable, or, day I say it, enjoyable.

So far, I don't see a whole lot of either.

Of course, what is said is not always what is meant. Say one thing in anger or frustration and hours, or even minutes, later I wish that I had said something else. It's more than the embarrassment of losing control. No, more because what was said wasn't what was true. If that happens for me, why wouldn't it be true for my wife? "I was so angry that I couldn't think straight," is a physiological description of the lack of oxygen in the brain as blood rushes to defense.

Ironically, it is the times that I have acted on what was said instead of what I heard that has worked out better. It becomes obvious when the words were not really what was intended, and to err by honoring what my wife says reduces the accusations of not listening or of hearing only what I want to hear.

I once began a conversation with, "You said ____, _____, and ____. That counts until you say something different. Your word is good with me." She didn't like the words that came back, and she was honest enough not to deny them. Like a mantra, "you said it" now cuts through a lot of verbal garbage.

I concede that your mileage may vary, but what's wrong with honoring the words?

For example, my wife once told me, calmly, right before falling asleep, that she had no problem with me going to a prostitute, because, in her words, "it's no different than masturbating...just that someone is there." I wrote that down, because I thought it was so crazy. Several weeks later, I brought her words up to her and asked her if she meant it. At first, she said that she had definitely meant it. So I said, "just to clarify this, you would have no problem if I took $300 out of savings, went to the classifieds, called a prostitute, and had sex with her?" She said, "no." "But..." she began. (Ahhh, here's where, as Duke said, the rubber meets the road)"...if you do that, I think you're avoiding dealing with your problem, and I'd really lose respect for you." My "problem" in her eyes is that I'm obsessed with sex.

So what I suspected was true: she's really NOT okay with me seeing a prostitute. It just took a bit of follow up to make sure of this fact. BTW, I'm not okay with seeing a prostitute, either. The reason I'm here on this blog is that I want my wife to desire me, to enjoy making love to me, to initiate once in a while.

So my suggestion is, honor the words, but make sure to give them a chance to clarify their meaning before you act.

Absolutely, Harry. Obviously your instincts on that troubling statement were excellent. This "I don't care if you..." sort of hastiness is actually a very common reaction to long-term frustration and worry about this issue, and it is almost never genuinely meant.

But an extended clarification process is really only necessary for the more unusual statements like this one. In the ordinary course of interpersonal business, the rule should be to honor what a person said the last time they spoke to you about something. Sometimes it helps to make this understanding explicit, though, saying something like, "From now on, I'm going by what you told me the last time we talked about [subject]. Is that okay with you?"

I do want to answer Duke's question, and in fact answering it in detail is part of my long-term plan for the blog. The short answer is that we BOTH changed our behavior and attitudes, and this was inevitable, because once one person makes a significant change, outwardly or inwardly, it changes the emotional environment for the other partner.

Interpersonal impasses and stalemates occur when both people are absolutely sure that it is the OTHER person who has to make the needed changes in THEIR attitudes and behaviors.

That's why one of the ways to know how much you really love your wife (or at least how much you value your marriage) is to ask yourself whether you are willing to seek the truth of your own life or make concessions in the absence of ANY effort or or alteration on the other side.

If, as one of the commenters on the post below apparently feels, the idea of making any concessions or changes first is too much of a sacrifice of your personal pride or self-image, you have your answer.

The biggest point I have been trying to make all along on this blog is that there is absolutely no way to FORCE a major change of feelings or attitude on another person if they are not willing to change. You cannot "hold onto your self-respect" long enough to make your wife suddenly decide she adores you and wants your body.

You could, however, re-examine your concept of self-respect or what you feel it requires, and you could then figure out whether your concept is doing you more harm than good in the long run.

Yes, there ARE boundaries that a man should not cross to please (or seduce love from) other human beings. That's why the process of making sure you know yourself and your unique "end of the line" should be approached with with All. You've. Got. in the way of intelligence and bravery.

To continue with the short answer to Duke's question, I was actually the one who made the first breakthroughs in our sexual impasse. My fundamental eroticism "grew back" in a way I'll talk about in more detail later, and -- most important -- I recognized my own quest for Power rather than partnership in my marriage.

Seeing the effect of my attitude changes on my husband, and the increasing trust and interest that those responsive changes in him then aroused in me, taught me the basic truths of this blog.

When you mention the 'whimper-y' thing I couldn't help but think gender roles and how women (including myself) sometimes respond when men show certain kinds of passivity, needs or emotions--they see it as weakness sometimes (a tendency I really try to fight)...The requirement to mother, the idea that your partner is a child-- can make some women very annoyed because life is hard and we always dreamed of someone who would be stronger and more with it than we are. I know there's a lot on this blog about men and women being really different--and perhaps they are. But I *think* men need affection, love, etc. just the same as women and that women's dream of 'strong guy' is just a fantasy. In a marriage you'd hope that fears and weaknesses could be shared without all this mixed up gender stuff--that men have to be strong and silent, etc. But when other things aren't going well I think we sometimes read stuff in funny ways. I think there was a flash of that with your wife that you saw even if this is not how she thinks all the time. Maybe that's what's going on here? At least in part. To ask for a hug can be kind of passive-aggressive (or seen that way) because it expresses fear of rejection but to take a hug is more stereotyped manly because it shows confidence and entitlement. (Of course, this also annoys people sometimes.)

So I'm not actually disagreeing with Julia--just adding another spin on similar ideas.

I seriously have no advice!...I've only observed that if either person is seen as 'needy' by the other this creates problems of mutual respect.

One thing that leaped out at me this time was Harry didn't ask "can I hug you?". His wife had told him to ask before he hugged or kissed her. That's an "ask before you invade my space" point.

Harry asked "can *I* have a hug?" That's what set off her "whiny little boy" and wasn't the same thing as the agreement they had negotiated before.

As for your take on this whole thing, Julia, I think "indelicate" comes to mind. I shared this story with you in hopes that you could provide some constructive criticism, not castrate me and treat me like a child (I already get that at home, thank you).

Understand that my criticism of you isn't in the ultimate advice you give, but rather your heavy-handed method of dishing it out. The pill is so hard to swallow because half of it seems to be over-critical filler.

On the other hand, I've seen this basic fact used as a shield against reasonable argument and responsibility. If I say "I think we should..." that statement is open to debate. But if my partner disagrees and I suddenly accuse her of "disrespecting my feelings" by questioning or disagreeing with what I said, that effectively puts my position beyond debate. Is that fair? Looks like a sure-fire recipe for deadlock to me. If you can't argue with feelings, and if both partners' feelings are equally important and relevant, then what happens when feelings collide?

Feelings are hard to steer - but so are ships. In both cases, some navigation, and extra expenditure of fuel, are needed to avoid disastrous collisions.

Sometimes feelings ARE wrong - i.e., when one partner insists on treating the other's mistakes as deliberate acts of hate. Feelings, however strong or deep, should not be used as excuses to avoid responsibility, or to avoid treating others as equals.

Sometimes feelings ARE wrong - i.e., when one partner insists on treating the other's mistakes as deliberate acts of hate. Feelings, however strong or deep, should not be used as excuses to avoid responsibility, or to avoid treating others as equals.

Precisely. As I said, we can certainly argue with what people DO as a result of their feelings. If they are using them as a club or as an excuse to avoid responsibility, or to continue on a course of action or inaction that is counterproductive, injurious or nasty we can of course say they are wrong to do that!

My point is that you can't indict the feelings, per se. People are going to feel what they feel no matter what, and if you want to work in reality, you have to understand and accept their feelings as a given, no matter how bizarre or ugly YOU think they are.

You can try to change a person's feelings with talk and explanation, and you can condemn a person for the way they handle their feelings or the way they behave as a result, but you CANNOT say, "Your feelings are morally wrong."

When feelings are on a collision course, decisions should be made on the basis of what ACTIONS are appropriate or inappropriate as human beings in relation to other human beings, not on whose feelings are stronger.

In other words, it is okay to be disgusted by your partner's insistence on doing somthing you've asked them not to, but it is NOT okay to, for example, beat them because they pissed you off. Whether or not a "dirty look" is out of bounds is debatable, of course. I'd advise against it because it poisons the interpersonal water and makes resolution of an emotional impasse all that much more difficult, but I suppose a case can be made for "allowing honest expression" or something.

My own marital problems were the opposite: my husband is the emotional guy who expressed his negative emotions too freely, and I suppressed mine too severely. I know what it's like to be on Harry's end of things, but I also wouldn't like to advise spouses of either gender to be like me, keeping their mouths shut just for the sake of a false sense of "peace."

Harry, I'm sorry you felt "castrated" by my honest examination of your situation. I felt I was being upfront with you and with the other readers here, bringing out elements of your situation that would be hard for you to discover or acknowledge on your own.

The last thing I did was treat you as a child! A child would be coddled and soothed and reassured that everything was Just Fine. I thought, in fact, that you were an intelligent adult who could handle what I had to say, in spite of the fact that in the end I couldn't "validate" you. I still think that.

I know you will take from this what you can use and discard the rest. Others will absorb what THEY can use and dismiss what's irrelevant to them. This way everybody's got some information and some interesting concepts to work with, whether or not they -- or you -- ultimately accept or apply any of it. In reference to your confusion about how to approach your wife, I understood you to originally say that your wife had only said "don't just do it without asking" in reference to much more intimate sexual activities, not in reference to asking for hugs and kisses outside the bedroom. Explicit sexual activity and daily expressions of affection are two different emotional situations and (in my view, anyway) two different sets of "rules" for them are understandable and legit.

If this is not the case, though, if your wife has also recently said to you that you have to ask for permission for mere hugs, and then objects this strenuously when you do, I agree that she is giving you unconscionably conflicting signals, and you have every right to call her on this (the signals, not the feelings behind them).

But another rule of thumb you might want to take into consideration is that the most recent request your loved one makes of you in regard to such things is the one you should take as the literal "last word." Things change, feelings change, people change. This is allowed (but not every other week, of course).

Again, I'm sorry if you were hurt by the honesty of my reply. But again I say that I think you're man enough to take it and make your life better as time goes on.

By the way: Nobody can "castrate" you with words unless you LET them. People can wound your feelings, sure, but they can't demolish you without your permission. You're very bravely looking for the truth, Harry (no matter how much that search might hurt in a given moment) and in my view that's a very MANLY thing to do.

That is one important point: that asking for a hug, a kiss, sex, etc. can be meaningless or it can be full of emotional value. For many women, it's easier to turn off the responses than to summon them on request.

That is a hook for the man to get into. Actually, it's basic seduction strategy, that you identify what the woman is holding back and address it.

And it's also a sign of hope. Emotional exchange can be worked on. It's a problem. As you hear over and over, for many men, it's the lack of knowing what is going on that frustrates. If in stereotypical ways, men need to solve problems, nothing annoys men more than a problem that won't give up a clue about how it can be solved.

In the short term, this is true, and we are right to judge each other, and ourselves, by our words and actions, not by our thoughts. But in the long term, if the same feelings must be concealed, glossed over, or suppressed on a regular basis, in order to avoid wrong actions, then it is time to reexamine the feelings themselves, and possibly take some action, or some thoughful reassessment, to change the feelings (or what causes them) so that they are more in line with one's real interests in the real world.

Example: Anger and frustration are inevitable, to some degree, and I simply cannot act on them as they happen without thought; but if I am angry and frustrated ALL THE TIME, then perhaps I need to reassess my wants, priorities, and/or expectations, and figure out what exactly is making me so. Do I expect too much of my partner, my job, or the Universe? Do I expect the impossible? What must I give up to get what I expect, and is that a good bargain? Have I learned the wrong responses or coping mechanisms? Am I channeling my energies in the right direction? Do I really need what I've thought I need all my life? Should I change my strategy for getting what I need or want?

In Narcotics Anonymous there is a saying: "You're not responsible for your disease, but you are responsible for your recovery." If your feelings are a disease in your life, preventing you from living and enjoying life on its own terms, then you are responsible for identifying the disease, and taking corrective action.

My contention was that it is totally useless to tell someone ELSE that they have to reform their emotions in order to solve YOUR problem with them.

That's part of the Narcotics Anonymous theory, too, isn't it? That no one and nothing can genuinely alter a man's feelings and actions until HE is willing to change?

You can give other people reasons and exhortations up the wazoo, but until THEY willingly do the internal work you're alluding to, their feelings and behaviors will not change. You'll be beating your head against the wall AND adding pointless negativity to the relationship.

That's why I say that we shouldn't be wasting our time saying to each other, "Stop feeling those feelings." A husband shouldn't waste his time saying to his wife, "You should want to have sex with me," and a wife shouldn't waste her time telling her husband that sex "shouldn't be that important" to him. Things are what they are.

The solution to the problems we have in dealing with other people's emotions is not to sit around bitching and moaning to ourselves about their "wrong" feelings, and essentially just hoping that they'll straighten up and fly right (the way we want them to). Racking up Righteousness Points in your own mind -- no matter how righteous you might actually be -- will do exactly J.A.C.K. to solve your problem.

All we can do when confronted with another person's problematic emotions (or lack of them) is to take another look at ourselves, OUR reactions, and what WE might be able to do that could alter that person's experience and outlook enough to make them look inward also.

Just yelling at them to "fix" themselves because their feelings aren't what you think they should be isn't going to do the trick.

You have previosly claimed that you write this blog from experience and that your life is a case-in-point for us husbands who ain't gettin' any. The point being that your sex life eventually "came around." So, what did your husband change about himself that made you want to come out of your sex-less funk? Did anything *he* did affect your feelings or emotions regarding having sex with him?

Let's say, for the sake of discussion, that he did make some changes in his behavior and, again, for the sake of argument, his change in behavior had little or nothing to do with your sexuality being revived. Have you asked him if this change in attitude/behavior helped him deal with his frustations along the way?

My marriage is perfect, but I'm sure Harry would like to know the answer to this, right, Harry? Just kidding, I'm dying to know if going through the incredibly difficult process of reshaping my attitude and behavior is worth squat. If it in any way encourages my wife to begin enjoying sex with me, great, but I would at least hope it helps make my life with her somewhat more bearable, or, day I say it, enjoyable.

So far, I don't see a whole lot of either.

Of course, what is said is not always what is meant. Say one thing in anger or frustration and hours, or even minutes, later I wish that I had said something else. It's more than the embarrassment of losing control. No, more because what was said wasn't what was true. If that happens for me, why wouldn't it be true for my wife? "I was so angry that I couldn't think straight," is a physiological description of the lack of oxygen in the brain as blood rushes to defense.

Ironically, it is the times that I have acted on what was said instead of what I heard that has worked out better. It becomes obvious when the words were not really what was intended, and to err by honoring what my wife says reduces the accusations of not listening or of hearing only what I want to hear.

I once began a conversation with, "You said ____, _____, and ____. That counts until you say something different. Your word is good with me." She didn't like the words that came back, and she was honest enough not to deny them. Like a mantra, "you said it" now cuts through a lot of verbal garbage.

I concede that your mileage may vary, but what's wrong with honoring the words?

For example, my wife once told me, calmly, right before falling asleep, that she had no problem with me going to a prostitute, because, in her words, "it's no different than masturbating...just that someone is there." I wrote that down, because I thought it was so crazy. Several weeks later, I brought her words up to her and asked her if she meant it. At first, she said that she had definitely meant it. So I said, "just to clarify this, you would have no problem if I took $300 out of savings, went to the classifieds, called a prostitute, and had sex with her?" She said, "no." "But..." she began. (Ahhh, here's where, as Duke said, the rubber meets the road)"...if you do that, I think you're avoiding dealing with your problem, and I'd really lose respect for you." My "problem" in her eyes is that I'm obsessed with sex.

So what I suspected was true: she's really NOT okay with me seeing a prostitute. It just took a bit of follow up to make sure of this fact. BTW, I'm not okay with seeing a prostitute, either. The reason I'm here on this blog is that I want my wife to desire me, to enjoy making love to me, to initiate once in a while.

So my suggestion is, honor the words, but make sure to give them a chance to clarify their meaning before you act.

Absolutely, Harry. Obviously your instincts on that troubling statement were excellent. This "I don't care if you..." sort of hastiness is actually a very common reaction to long-term frustration and worry about this issue, and it is almost never genuinely meant.

But an extended clarification process is really only necessary for the more unusual statements like this one. In the ordinary course of interpersonal business, the rule should be to honor what a person said the last time they spoke to you about something. Sometimes it helps to make this understanding explicit, though, saying something like, "From now on, I'm going by what you told me the last time we talked about [subject]. Is that okay with you?"

I do want to answer Duke's question, and in fact answering it in detail is part of my long-term plan for the blog. The short answer is that we BOTH changed our behavior and attitudes, and this was inevitable, because once one person makes a significant change, outwardly or inwardly, it changes the emotional environment for the other partner.

Interpersonal impasses and stalemates occur when both people are absolutely sure that it is the OTHER person who has to make the needed changes in THEIR attitudes and behaviors.

That's why one of the ways to know how much you really love your wife (or at least how much you value your marriage) is to ask yourself whether you are willing to seek the truth of your own life or make concessions in the absence of ANY effort or or alteration on the other side.

If, as one of the commenters on the post below apparently feels, the idea of making any concessions or changes first is too much of a sacrifice of your personal pride or self-image, you have your answer.

The biggest point I have been trying to make all along on this blog is that there is absolutely no way to FORCE a major change of feelings or attitude on another person if they are not willing to change. You cannot "hold onto your self-respect" long enough to make your wife suddenly decide she adores you and wants your body.

You could, however, re-examine your concept of self-respect or what you feel it requires, and you could then figure out whether your concept is doing you more harm than good in the long run.

Yes, there ARE boundaries that a man should not cross to please (or seduce love from) other human beings. That's why the process of making sure you know yourself and your unique "end of the line" should be approached with with All. You've. Got. in the way of intelligence and bravery.

To continue with the short answer to Duke's question, I was actually the one who made the first breakthroughs in our sexual impasse. My fundamental eroticism "grew back" in a way I'll talk about in more detail later, and -- most important -- I recognized my own quest for Power rather than partnership in my marriage.

Seeing the effect of my attitude changes on my husband, and the increasing trust and interest that those responsive changes in him then aroused in me, taught me the basic truths of this blog.

When you mention the 'whimper-y' thing I couldn't help but think gender roles and how women (including myself) sometimes respond when men show certain kinds of passivity, needs or emotions--they see it as weakness sometimes (a tendency I really try to fight)...The requirement to mother, the idea that your partner is a child-- can make some women very annoyed because life is hard and we always dreamed of someone who would be stronger and more with it than we are. I know there's a lot on this blog about men and women being really different--and perhaps they are. But I *think* men need affection, love, etc. just the same as women and that women's dream of 'strong guy' is just a fantasy. In a marriage you'd hope that fears and weaknesses could be shared without all this mixed up gender stuff--that men have to be strong and silent, etc. But when other things aren't going well I think we sometimes read stuff in funny ways. I think there was a flash of that with your wife that you saw even if this is not how she thinks all the time. Maybe that's what's going on here? At least in part. To ask for a hug can be kind of passive-aggressive (or seen that way) because it expresses fear of rejection but to take a hug is more stereotyped manly because it shows confidence and entitlement. (Of course, this also annoys people sometimes.)

So I'm not actually disagreeing with Julia--just adding another spin on similar ideas.

I seriously have no advice!...I've only observed that if either person is seen as 'needy' by the other this creates problems of mutual respect.

One thing that leaped out at me this time was Harry didn't ask "can I hug you?". His wife had told him to ask before he hugged or kissed her. That's an "ask before you invade my space" point.

Harry asked "can *I* have a hug?" That's what set off her "whiny little boy" and wasn't the same thing as the agreement they had negotiated before.