Living
Tough questioning for Gallagher at marriage hearing
Democratic lawmakers hammer anti-gay activist
Maggie Gallagher, chair of the National Organization for Marriage (Blade photo by Michael Key)
Democratic lawmakers on Friday hammered anti-gay activist Maggie Gallagher during a congressional hearing with questions on why same-sex couples should be excluded from marriage and the extent to which the National Organization for Marriage participated in campaigns to rescind state marriage laws.
In testimony before the House Judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution, Gallagher, NOM’s chair and co-founder, said marriage should restricted to one man and one woman because such unions are the only kind that can produce children and because state voters by referenda have affirmed 31 times that marriage shouldn’t be extended to gay couples.
“Marriage is the union of husband and wife for a reason: these are the only unions that create new life and connect those children in love to their mother and father,” Gallagher said. “This is not necessarily the reason why individuals marry; this is the great reason, the public reason why government gets involved in the first place.”
The hearing, which was titled “Defending Marriage,” took place on the heels of President Obama’s announcement on Feb. 23 that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional and that his administration would no longer defend the anti-gay law against litigation in court. Following a 3-2 party-line vote in March by the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Council, U.S. House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) directed the House general counsel to take up defense of DOMA in place of the administration.
Gallagher said the need to raise children by married parents of opposite genders affirms the rationale for having in place DOMA, the 1996 law that prohibits recognition of same-sex marriage, and criticized the Justice Department for dropping defense of the law.
“This is the rationale for the national definition of marriage proposed by Congress in passing DOMA: ‘civil society has an interest in maintaining and protecting the institution of heterosexual marriage because it has a deep and abiding interest in encouraging responsible procreation and child-rearing,'” Gallagher said. “If we accept, as DOMA explicitly does, that this is a core public purpose of marriage, then treating same-sex unions as marriage makes little sense.”
Following her opening statement, Gallagher bore the brunt of tough questioning from Democratic lawmakers during the question-and-answer session of the hearing.
Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), ranking Democrat on the subcommittee, asked Gallagher if the children of Jen and Dawn BarbouRouske, a married same-sex couple from Iowa who were present during the hearing, should have parents who can receive the full protections of marriage or if she considers these children “expendable.”
“I think no children are expendable,” Gallagher replied. “Gay people have families that are not marital families, but they are families. I myself was an unwed mother, so I have firsthand experience with being in a family that’s not a marital family. I don’t think you need to have a message of stigmatization and exclusion to protect to an ideal.”
Nadler, sponsor of DOMA repeal legislation in the House, interrupted Gallagher, saying “the whole point” of DOMA is stigmatization and exclusion, and pressed Gallagher further on why the institution of marriage benefits when same-sex couples are excluded.
“Because including same-sex unions as marriages denies at a public level that marriage is about an important way for getting together mothers and fathers and children,” Gallagher said.
Nadler continued to question Gallagher on NOM’s involvement in 2010 Iowa campaign that successfully ousted three justices from the state Supreme Court who ruled in favor of same-sex marriage. The lawmaker asked Gallagher, who estimated that NOM contributed between $600,000 and $650,000 to the campaign, why she would criticize the Justice Department for allegedly making a political decision while her organization politicized the judicial process.
“The National Organization of Marriage is political advocacy organization, and so I think it’s appropriate for us to be politically involved in ways that Department of Justice is not,” Gallagher replied.
Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), a co-sponsor of the DOMA repeal bill, asked Gallagher whether reports were true that her organization contributed $1.9 million to the 2009 campaign in Maine to abrogate the states’s same-sex marriage law. Opponents of same-sex marriage succeeded in nullifying the marriage law in the state before gay couples could marry there.
“I don’t have those figures in front of me, but we were involved in the [effort],” Gallagher said. “But that’s probably on the order [of our contributions].”
NOM has repeatedly come under fire for failing to disclose their donors during the campaign against the Maine marriage law. State courts have ordered the organization to reveal their donors in accordance with the law, but NOM has yet to do so.
Following the hearing, Dan Fotou, eastern regional field director for GetEQUAL, praised Democratic lawmakers for hammering Gallagher with tough questions after her testimony.
“I think it was good to hear the Democrats standing up and challenging Maggie Gallagher’s position,” Fotou said. “Fifty-two percent of Americans think that marriage equality is OK, so I think today was good in terms of putting a face on hate once again, and Maggie does a really great job of that.”
Democratic lawmakers’ criticisms during the hearing weren’t limited to Gallagher. Conyers questioned Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), chair of the subcommittee, why no witnesses from the Justice Department were present to defend Obama’s decision to drop defense of DOMA.
“What bothers me about this hearing at this subcommittee is that the Department of Justice is not present,” Conyers said. “I was informed that they were not invited. … We have one of the leaders of the country, Ms. Gallagher, who’s raised hundreds of thousands of dollars against judges … but there’s nobody here from the Justice Department.”
In response, Franks said the Justice Department would be invited to come during an upcoming hearing in May before the House Oversight & Government Reform Committee on the DOMA decision. Upon further questioning, Franks maintained the panel was fair because its makeup included witnesses on both sides of the issue.
But Franks’ response apparently didn’t allay the concerns of Conyers, who said he hopes Congress can hear the Justice Department to respond to the criticisms of Gallagher.
“There’s a political tone in this hearing that I want to diminish as much as possible,” Conyers said. “The fact of the matter is this is not in regular order and I do not approve the way that we’re starting out this subcommittee [hearing].”
Despite the general tone in favor of DOMA during the hearing, several panel members known for having anti-gay views — including Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), who’s railed against same-sex marriage in home state, and Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), who’s leading the effort to eliminate gay nuptials in D.C. — didn’t make an appearance. Neither the office for King nor Jordan responded to the Washington Blade’s request to comment on why the lawmakers didn’t attend the hearing.
Ian Thompson, who’s gay and legislative representative for the American Civil Liberties Union, said the lack of presence by anti-gay lawmakers was telling that the they were uncomfortable with their positions.
“The thing that was particularly striking to me was the fact that so few DOMA supporters on the committee actually were in attendance,” Thompson said. “So, from my perspective, if the hearing was intended to demonstrate the support of the House of Representatives for DOMA, from the attendance alone, it was a complete and total flop.”
Rep. Trent Franks (Blade photo by Michael Key)
But a few anti-gay Republicans did make an appearance to rebuke the notion of extending marriage rights to gay couples and to criticize the Justice Department for dropping defense of DOMA.
Franks called Obama’s decision to discontinue defense of the anti-gay law an “edict” that “failed to show the caution and respect for Congress and the courts.”
“When the President unilaterally declares a duly enacted law unconstitutional, he cuts Congress and the American people out of the lawmaking process,” Franks said. “Such heavy-handed presidential action undermines the separation of powers and the principle that America is a constitutional republic predicated on the rule of law.”
Franks continued that the arguments in favor of DOMA are “reasonable and right” because marriage between one man and one woman is the best union for raising children.
“Traditional marriage has proven to be the most successful institution in humanity’s history for the propagation and preparation of the next generation,” Franks said. “The traditional family has proven to be the best department of welfare, the best department of education, the best department of crime prevention, and the best department of economic security that there has ever been.”
Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), a lawmaker known for anti-gay views, also made an appearance at the hearing and railed against what he called the government altering the definition of marriage. Smith, chair of the full House Judiciary Committee, offered an opening statement during the hearing even though he’s not a member of the subcommittee.
“If we tamper with the definition of marriage, harmful unintended consequences could follow,” Smith said. “The ability of religious institutions to define marriage for themselves to promote their sincerely held beliefs could be threatened.”
Smith said the will the people is for continued definition of marriage between one man and one woman — noting the 31 successful ballot initiatives that restricted marriage to such unions — and said the U.S. Constitution doesn’t provide protections for same-sex couples seeking to marry.
“No one can seriously believe that the Constitution’s founders intended to create a right to same-sex marriage,” Smith said. “By refusing to defend the Defense of Marriage Act against legal challenges, the administration has allowed the courts to overrule that popular law.”
Franks and Smith’s opening statements were countered by initial remarks from Nadler, who called arguments that Justice Department acted inappropriately by dropping defense of DOMA a “red herring” and said the real question should be whether anyone — either the Obama administration or Congress — should defend the law.
“Far from demeaning, trivializing or destroying the institution of marriage, [gay] couples have embraced this time-honored tradition and the commitment and serious legal duties of marriage,” Nadler said. “Rather than defending DOMA in court, Congress should be working to repeal it.”
Two legal experts on the panel presented opposing views on whether the administration acted within bounds in its decision to discontinue defense of DOMA in court.
Edward Whelan, president of the Ethics & Public Policy Center, said the Justice Department’s decision is in violation of its policy.
“The Obama administration’s decision to abandon defense of DOMA — or more precisely, to abandon its charade of pretending to defend DOMA — departs sharply from the Department of Justice’s long-standing practice,” Whelan said.
Whelan said Obama dropped defense of the anti-gay law to appease a political constituency and to induce the courts to “invent the constitutional right to same-sex marriage.”
“With the exception of laws that intrude on the executive branch’s power, the long-standing practice of the Department of Justice is to vigorously defend the constitutionality of any law where a reasonable may be made,” Whelan said. “This ‘reasonable standard’ is a very low bar. It basically means that the Department of Justice will defend a federal law against constitutional challenge when it can offer non-frivolous grounds in support of the law.”
Carlos Ball, a gay law professor at Rutgers Law School (Blade photo by Michael Key)
But Carlos Ball, a gay law professor from Rutgers Law School, testified that Obama acted within his authority because another statute exists saying that the attorney general must inform Congress if the administration decides to no longer defend a law.
“The existence of that statute seems to be a recognition by the Congress of the reality that the executive branch sometimes, in rare cases, can not defend the constitutionality of a law,” Ball said. “The executive branch, as a co-equal branch of government, has the authority and obligation to make independent assessment’s regarding a law’s constitutionality.”
Ball noted precedent for an administration declaring an existing law unconstitutional and dropping defense of the statute in court — the 1990 case of Metro Broadcasting v. FCC. Then-acting U.S. Solicitor General John Roberts, now Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, argued that a law providing for minority preferences in broadcast licensing was unconstitutional. Despite the position of the Bush administration, the Supreme Court later upheld the law.
Real Estate
How federal layoffs, shutdown threaten D.C.-area landlords
When paychecks disappear, the shock doesn’t stop at the Beltway
When federal paychecks disappear, the shock doesn’t stop at the Beltway. It lands on the doorsteps of the region’s property owners, those who rent out their rowhouses in Petworth, condos in Crystal City, and homes stretching into Montgomery and Prince George’s counties. Landlords depend on steady rent from tenants employed by the very institutions that are now downsized or worse, shuttered.
This fall, Washington’s economic identity is being tested once again. Thousands of federal workers who accepted “deferred resignation” packages will soon lose their income altogether. And with a long government shutdown looming, even those still on the payroll face delayed paychecks. For landlords, that combination of uncertainty and sudden income loss threatens to unsettle a rental market already balancing on the edge.
A Test of Resilience
Rosie Allen-Herring, president of United Way of the National Capital Area, recently told The Washington Post, “This region stands to take a hard hit from those who are no longer employed but can’t find new employment and now find themselves in need. It’s a full-circle moment to be a donor and now find yourself in need, but it is very real for this area.” 1 That reversal captures the broader moment: The D.C. economy built on federal paychecks and charitable giving now faces a stress test of compassion and cash flow alike.
For landlords, adaptability will determine who weathers the storm. Those who are able to keep the rent coming in, retain their tenants or find replacement tenants without the same economic hardships are going to be able to get to the other side with manageable financial disruptions. Those who plan, communicate, and stay financially flexible will keep their properties occupied and their reputations intact.
A Region Built on Federal Pay
Roughly one in ten jobs in the Washington metropolitan area is tied directly to the federal government, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. That number climbs sharply when you include contractors, nonprofits, and think tanks dependent on federal funding.
This concentration means that when the federal government sneezes, D.C.’s housing market catches a cold. The Brookings Institution recently reported that since January, the region’s unemployment rate has climbed eight times faster than the national average, and local job growth has flattened. 1 More anecdotal, I’ve spoken with property owners this year who are looking to rent out the property they own in DC because they have to move to another region for work.
As The Post observed, “The region has shed federal jobs at a higher rate, and both the number of homes for sale and the share of residents with low credit scores have grown more quickly here than the rest of the country.” 1
For landlords, that’s a flashing warning light. When a certain category of tenants with solid compensation lose reliable government salaries and face dim re-employment prospects, rent becomes harder to collect and rent levels can decline year on year.
The Human Side of a Policy Shock
The people behind these statistics are often long-tenured civil servants. The Post profiled former State Department employee Brian Naranjo, who said he had “unsuccessfully thrown his résumé at more than 50 positions since resigning in May.” “It’s terrible,” Naranjo told the paper. “You have far more people going for those very specialized jobs than would normally be out there.” 1
Another displaced worker, Jennifer Malenab, a 42-year-old former Department of Homeland Security employee, described canceling daycare and family vacations while she scours job boards. “This is not where you want to be at 42, with a family,” she said. 1
When households like these lose steady pay, not only do they pull back on spending, but if they are renters landlords may see a lag in rent receipts, requests for partial payments, or in some cases, a premature notice to vacate. Some tenants will relocate out of the region altogether — a prospect already visible in rising “for sale” listings and increased moving-truck activity in Northern Virginia and suburban Maryland.
What Happens When the Rent Doesn’t Arrive
When rent payments are disrupted, even temporarily, the financial effects can be immediate. Many small landlords depend on rent to cover their mortgages, property taxes, insurance premiums, and routine maintenance. Even a temporary interruption in income can deplete reserves, delay repairs, and strain their ability to meet loan obligations.
Larger multifamily owners are not immune. If multiple tenants in a building lose income at once, cash flow can fall sharply. During the brief 2019 government shutdown, some D.C. landlords offered short-term payment plans to furloughed workers with the expectation of eventual back pay. However, under current conditions, where many positions are being permanently eliminated and paychecks may not be restored, landlords face much greater uncertainty and cannot assume repayment will be guaranteed.
In the District of Columbia, the Rental Housing Commission has advised landlords to continue operating strictly within established legal procedures and to avoid informal or selective payment arrangements that could be interpreted as discriminatory under the D.C. Human Rights Act. Courts in Virginia and Maryland allow temporary continuances when tenants provide documentation of a federal furlough or income disruption, but it is the court, not the landlord, that determines eligibility for relief.
How Landlords Should Proceed
- Continue filing nonpayment cases through normal legal channels rather than delaying action.
- Allow the courts to apply any continuance or relief provisions if a tenant qualifies due to federal employment status or income interruption.
- Avoid making selective accommodations based on a tenant’s job type or federal employment status, as this may violate equal-treatment and source-of-income protections.
Landlords with a single tenant or a consistent written policy of offering payment plans to all tenants experiencing verified income disruption should not be at risk of discriminatory treatment.
Vacancy, Concessions, and Shifting Demand
Beyond nonpayment of rent, landlords face a challenge from a different direction: weak demand. As fewer jobs are being created and unemployed or under-employed tenants move out of DC, the supply of available rental units will rise, forcing landlords to compete more aggressively on price and amenities.
Market data already point that direction. The volume of rental listings across the District of Columbia jumped roughly 14 percent year-over-year in September, according to the realtor Multiple Listing Service (MLS) trends, as reported by the Washington Business Journal. Landlords are offering free parking, one-month concessions, or flexible leases to retain quality tenants.
Neighborhoods once buffered by federal stability like Silver Spring, Falls Church, and Alexandria may now see higher tenant turnover. As one Arlington property manager put it, “We used to say federal employees were the safest tenants in America. Now we’re rewriting that rule.”
A Shrinking Workforce, a Softer Market
In addition to the layoffs, the region is contending with a broader identity crisis. “Yesim Sayin, executive director of the D.C. Policy Center, put it bluntly: ‘Beyond federal employment, we relied on tourism. But foreign tourists aren’t coming. And we relied a whole lot on universities bringing talent who would then stay here and be part of our talent pool. And that is kind of gone, too. So what are we now? We just don’t know.’” 1
This uncertainty may impact property values and investor sentiment. When employers relocate, renters follow. If enough mid-career professionals leave, demand for rentals will first soften and then we’ll begin to see a lowering of the average rents a landlord can command for their rental. We have already seen this in the current rental market. Rents that seems reasonable a few years ago, are now being discounted by hundreds of dollars. Landlords who are searching for new renters after several years of having tenants are finding that they need to bring rent levels below where they used to be to secure tenants commitments.
Strategies for Landlords: Staying Solvent and Supportive
In times like these, survival depends on both prudence and empathy.
1. Communicate early. Encourage tenants to disclose financial hardship before missing payments. Written payment plans, properly documented, can forestall eviction while preserving goodwill.
2. Review legal protections. Understand D.C., Maryland, and Virginia rules regarding furlough continuances or income-source discrimination. Seek legal counsel before altering lease terms mid-cycle.
3. Build reserves and credit access. Line up a home-equity or business line of credit to bridge shortfalls. Cash on hand always is helpful to have as a buffer for the impact of income disruption.
4. Monitor policy developments. State and local governments are supporting people who are affected by the lay-offs. Landlords can benefit indirectly through their renters who are utilizing these programs to assist them in paying their monthly expenses.
5. Contact your Congressional representatives to demand the reopening of the federal government. And in D.C., you do benefit from representation, even though they cannot vote. They can influence decisions that matter.
Scott Bloom is owner and senior property manager of Columbia Property Management.
Real Estate
Real terrors of homeownership come from neglect, not ghosts
Mold, termites, frayed wires scarier than any poltergeist
Each October, we decorate our homes with cobwebs, skeletons, and flickering jack-o’-lanterns to create that spooky Halloween atmosphere. But for anyone who’s ever been through a home inspection there’s no need for fake scares. Homes can hide terrors that send chills down your spine any time of year. From ghostly noises in the attic to toxic monsters in the basement, here are some of the eeriest (but real) things inspectors and homeowners discover.
Every haunted house movie starts with a creepy basement, and in real life, it’s often just as menacing. Mold, mildew, and hidden water leaks lurk down there like invisible phantoms. At first, it’s just a musty smell — something you might brush off as “old house syndrome,” but soon enough, you realize those black or green patches creeping along the walls can be more sinister than any poltergeist.
Black mold (Stachybotrys chartarum) is particularly fearsome – it thrives in damp, dark places and can cause serious respiratory problems. It’s not just gross – it’s toxic and, while some types of mold can be easily cleaned up, removing black mold can cost more than an exorcism.
Have you ever heard strange buzzing or seen flickering lights that seem to move on their own? Before you call the Ghostbusters, call an electrician. Faulty wiring, outdated panels, and aluminum circuits from the mid-20th century are the true villains behind many mysterious house fires. Home inspectors can also find open junction boxes, frayed wires stuffed behind walls, or overloaded breaker panels that hum like a restless spirit.
Imagine an invisible specter floating through your home – something that’s been there since the 1950s, waiting for you to disturb it. That’s asbestos. Home inspectors dread discovering asbestos insulation around old boilers or wrapped around ductwork. It’s often lurking in popcorn ceilings, floor tiles, and even wall plaster. You can’t see it, smell it, or feel it—but inhaling those microscopic fibers can lead to serious illness decades later.
Lead pipes, once thought to be durable and reliable, are like the vampires of your water system – quietly poisoning what sustains you. The results of a lead test can be chilling: even a small amount of lead exposure is dangerous, particularly for children.
And it’s not just pipes – lead paint is another problem that refuses to die. You might find it sealed beneath layers of newer paint, biding its time until it chips or flakes away. This is why, when selling a property built prior to 1978, homeowners must disclose any knowledge of lead paint in the home and provide any records they may have of its presence or abatement.
Scratching in the walls. Tiny footsteps overhead. Droppings in the attic. It’s not a poltergeist – it’s pests. Termites, rats, bats, carpenter ants, and even raccoons can do more damage than any ghost ever could.
Termites are the silent assassins of the home world, chewing through beams and joists until the structure itself starts to sag. Rats and mice leave behind droppings that can spread disease and contaminate food. Bats are federally protected, meaning your haunted attic guests can’t just be evicted without proper precautions. And I once had a raccoon give birth in my chimney flue; my dogs went crazy.
Ever step into a home and feel the floors tilt under your feet? That’s no ghostly illusion – it’s the foundation shifting beneath you. Cracked walls, doors that won’t close, and windows that rattle in their frames are the architectural equivalent of a horror movie scream.
Foundation damage can come from settling soil, poor drainage, or tree roots rising from under the structure. In extreme cases, inspectors find entire crawl spaces flooded, joists eaten by rot, or support beams cracked like brittle bones. Repair costs can be monstrous – and if left unchecked, the whole house could become a haunted ruin.
Some homes hold more than just physical scares. Behind the drywall or under the floorboards, inspectors may uncover personal relics – old letters, photographs, even hidden safes or forgotten rooms. Occasionally, however, there are stranger finds: jars of preserved “specimens,” taxidermy gone wrong, or mysterious symbols scrawled in attic spaces.
These discoveries tell stories of the people who lived there before, sometimes fascinating, sometimes chilling, but they all add to the eerie charm of an old home, reminding us that every house has a history — and some histories don’t like to stay buried.
So, while haunted houses may be a Halloween fantasy, the real terrors in homeownership come from neglect, not ghosts. Regular inspections, good maintenance, and modern updates are the garlic and holy water that turn a trick of a home into a treat.
Valerie M. Blake is a licensed associate broker in D.C., Maryland, and Virginia with RLAH @properties. Call or text her at 202-246-8602, email her via DCHomeQuest.com, or follow her on Facebook at TheRealst8ofAffairs.
Advice
Sexual desire is waning, should we open our relationship?
Couple faces difficult choices after seven years
Dear Michael,
When I met my husband seven years ago, I was super attracted to him and we had a really hot sex life.
That feeling has been waning for a while and now I am just not feeling it.
I know that people get older, gain weight, get less attractive over time but that’s not the case here. Ben is as good looking as ever. But I have little desire to have sex with him.
It bothers me that I don’t really want to have sex with the guy I love and want to spend the rest of my life with.
Is this why everyone else I know has an open relationship? Is there something I can do to want to have sex with my husband again?
This is causing major problems in my marriage. I don’t initiate anymore and half the time I find an excuse to not have sex when Ben initiates. He knows something is up but I usually blame it on work stress or not feeling well. I don’t want to hurt his feelings.
Aside from this, I love Ben and we have a lot of fun together. We’re very close, talk about all sorts of stuff, but not this.
Michael replies:
Pretty much everyone in a long-term relationship has to deal with decreased desire at some point.
Sex changes after you’ve been with your partner for a while. Sex is not going to be as easy, hot, and irresistible as it was at the beginning of the relationship. Newness generates a lot of the sexual heat at the outset of a relationship, and when the newness is gone, you don’t easily feel the same sizzling excitement that you felt when you first met.
Unfortunately, the kind of sex that people have at the beginning of a relationship is totally glorified in our culture as the gold standard of sex.
I say “unfortunately” because it’s not possible to consistently have the hot sex of a new relationship, ongoing, with a long-term partner. So if you think that is the best or only kind of sex to have, you will be contemptuous of anything else, and you will be disappointed in your sex life with your partner as time marches on.
But the sizzling sex people have at the start of a relationship is just one way to have sex. If you are willing to be imaginative, and are open to change, there are many other kinds of sex that can be wonderful.
How about sex for emotional connection? Sex for physical closeness? Sex for romance? Sex to celebrate just being together?
So, consider changing (not lowering!) your expectations. Rather than sulking or moping that you don’t want to spontaneously jump Ben’s bones, be open to having sex with your husband that is based more on your relationship and on your love for each other.
Now, here’s a whole other angle to consider: While the excitement of a new partner often fades, there are still ways to generate excitement and passion in a long-term relationship by taking risks and revealing yourself more deeply. Stick with me and I’ll explain.
- You haven’t said anything to Ben about your waning interest. I encourage you to re-think this. You would be much better positioned to tackle this issue collaboratively. Not talking about how stuck you feel is likely to deepen your feeling of shame and fear that something is wrong. Speaking with Ben about what is actually a fairly common couples’ issue could be a relief.
- Ironic as this may seem, the closer two people are, the less comfortable they may be being frankly sexual with each other. Clients often tell me that they are more comfortable expressing their real desires to someone they hardly know (or don’t know at all) than to their significant other. For one thing, the more your partner means to you, the more you may fear rejection if you reveal sexual feelings and desires that might upset or even shock your partner. For another, as couples get closer, sex may start to feel like too much closeness, and avoiding sex may be a way to create some space.
Not speaking up about what is important keeps you distant from your partner and drains your relationship of vitality. A powerful antidote to this: work toward becoming a person who can take risks, tolerate discomfort and uncertainty, and be able stand on your own when you don’t get your partner’s validation.
Talking with Ben, whether it’s about your lack of spontaneous desire for sex, or about sexual interests you may be keeping from him for fear of judgment, would involve your making uncomfortable moves that might lead to Ben’s judgment or even rejection. But doing so would also, of course, allow the possibility of more happening between you sexually. It would also let Ben know you better, thereby deepening the level of intimacy in your relationship. Making these moves could also be inherently exciting, which —guess what—could help to shake you out of your sexual doldrums and bring more passion and life into your relationship.
Similarly, you might start initiating. Even if you’re afraid it won’t go well and even if you’re not feeling it. That is the only way you are going to figure out how to have satisfying long-term sex. Take the need for an erection or orgasm off the table. Sex with your partner should not be a performance. Go for closeness, connection, and what feels good. And challenge yourself to go places that you are uncomfortable about going.
If any of this intrigues you, “Passionate Marriage” and “Intimacy and Desire,” both by David Schnarch, explore how your sexual connection can deepen over time in a long-term relationship.
Finally, with regard to your considering an open relationship as a remedy: Do you think that would enhance the sexual connection between you and Ben?
Michael Radkowsky, Psy.D. is a licensed psychologist who works with couples and individuals in D.C. He can be found online at michaelradkowsky.com. All identifying information has been changed for reasons of confidentiality. Have a question? Send it to [email protected].
How federal layoffs, shutdown threaten D.C.-area landlords
A history of lesbian workarounds to build family
Astounding ‘LIZZIE’ builds on legendary axe murder tale
Un país que vota desde el miedo y la esperanza
Superb direction, performances create a ‘Day’ to remember
‘Sandwich guy’ not guilty in assault case
Gay speedskater racing toward a more inclusive future in sports
Blue wave hits Northeast: Sherrill and Mamdani lead Democratic comeback
Trial begins for man charged with throwing sandwich at federal agent
Dick Cheney was a disastrous VP and not a true LGBTQ ally
-
District of Columbia3 days ago‘Sandwich guy’ not guilty in assault case
-
Sports4 days ago
Gay speedskater racing toward a more inclusive future in sports
-
New Jersey4 days ago
Blue wave hits Northeast: Sherrill and Mamdani lead Democratic comeback
-
District of Columbia4 days ago
Trial begins for man charged with throwing sandwich at federal agent
