Archive

ShareThis Page
An affection imbalance threatens a marriage | TribLIVE.com
More Lifestyles

An affection imbalance threatens a marriage

Carolyn Hax
| Monday, September 24, 2018 1:33 a.m
246462gtrLIVhax081918

Adapted from a recent online discussion.

Dear Carolyn:

I’d like to warn my husband that I’m unhappy enough that it could destroy us, but I’m not sure how to do it without an ultimatum. I’m unhappy with a general lack of affection, especially the G-rated kind. That bothers me all the more, like I’m only worth an effort when sex is involved.

We’ve had different versions of this conversation every few months for two years — everything from the serious and tearful, “I’m lonely,” to a joking, “Pay attention to me.” When I raise the subject, I’ll enjoy the sweet forehead kiss, random hug or backrub for a few days, but it never lasts.

Am I overlooking a way to broach this subject? It doesn’t seem fair to blindside him with a separation, but I don’t want to be a “do this or else” kind of wife and won’t stay in a lonely marriage.

— Unhappy

This isn’t about ultimatums or even what you’re “worth.” This is about who you are and who your husband is, period. You are about regular, G-rated affection. Your husband is not. That’s it. You did the right thing by articulating what you wanted, and he did the right thing when he tried to provide it. But his inability — don’t torture yourself with “willingness” judgments — to show sustained affection contains essential information: His daily-affection set point is below what you want out of life.

So, tweaking your original question: Knowing he’s not affectionate, what do you want next? To make one last request? To try living in the marriage for a while knowing this is how it’s going to be? (Never underestimate the burden of believing a marriage will change if you only do A, B or C just right. It’s exhausting. And embittering.)

Do you want to separate?

There’s no “blindsiding” someone after eight discussions in the past two years. That’s a lot of notice. Say this, even. And: “I’ve run out of ways to ask. I also don’t think it’s fair for either of us to stay in a marriage where we’re being asked to be people we’re not.”

Before “seeya,” you can also say you’ve contemplated leaving over the affection problem and may still, but you want him to know this is how seriously lonely you feel.

He’ll either change permanently or he won’t.

That after all is the ultimatum problem: It’s basically a threat to make someone do something to keep you, and you certainly wouldn’t want someone marrying you, for example, under threat. But this is a case where the source of the result isn’t as important as the result itself.

Re: Unhappy:

I had that exact issue, and after WAY too long deliberating, I ended it. I’m now engaged to a man who WANTS to give and receive similar affection.

You did the first step by asking for what you need. The second step is the hard part.

— Anonymous

Understatement. And true, thanks.

Re: Unhappy:

If I need a hug, I don’t wait for hubby to hug me. I go to him and put my arms around him and we hug. Giving affection to him freely makes it easier for him to give me affection freely. If he is shrugging away from a hug repeatedly, that’s another story.

— Two-Way Street

Email Carolyn at tellme@washpost.com, follow her on Facebook at www.facebook.com/carolyn.hax or chat with her online at noon Eastern time each Friday at www.washingtonpost.com.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.