Connect with us

Living

Boehner: Cut DOJ funds to pay for House DOMA defense

Speaker taps Bush solicitor general to defend law

Published

on

U.S. House Speaker John Boehner (Blade file photo by Michael Key)

U.S. House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) on Monday called for redirection of funds from the Justice Department to Congress to pay for defense of the Defense of Marriage Act in court as he made public his decision to hire a U.S. solicitor general from the Bush administration to defend the anti-gay statute.

In a letter dated April 18 to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Boehner calls for cutting funds from the Justice Department to provide money to the House general counsel to pay for congressional costs to defend in court DOMA, the 1996 anti-gay law that prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriage.

On the same day, Boehner’s office announced that Paul Clement, who served as U.S. solicitor general under President George W. Bush, would assist the House general counsel in taking up defense of DOMA against litigation. Clement is now a partner at the D.C.-based office for the firm King & Spalding, where he manages the national appellate practice.

Boehner made the announcements on the deadline day for the House to decide whether or not to intervene in one case challenging DOMA, Windsor v. United States, which was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and is pending before the U.S. District Court of Southern District of New York. The House general counsel filed a notice of its intent to intervene on Monday.

In his letter to Pelosi, Boehner writes that funds should be redirected from the Obama administration to Congress to pay for expenses that the speaker says would have been more rightfully incurred by the Justice Department.

“Obviously, DOJ’s decision results in DOJ no longer needing the funds it would have otherwise expended defending the constitutionality of DOMA,” Boehner writes. “It is my intent that those funds be diverted to the House for reimbursement of any costs incurred by and associated with the House, and not DOJ, defending DOMA.”

On Feb. 23, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder notified Congress that President Obama determined DOMA was unconstitutional and that the Justice Department 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, Boehner directed the House general counsel to take up defense of DOMA in place of the administration.

In his letter, Boehner writes that the Justice Department would be in a better position to defend DOMA — both in terms of resource allocation and in expertise of personnel — but adds the administration’s decision to drop defense of the anti-gay law leaves Congress no other option but to face “that additional burden and cost.

“I would also point out that the cost associated with DOJ’s decision is exacerbated by the timing of this decision,” Boehner writes. “Most of these cases are in the middle of lower court litigation and not ripe for Supreme Court review. Had the Attorney General waited until the cases were ripe for certiorari to the Supreme Court, the costs associated with the House defense would have been exponentially lower.”

Obama dropped defense of DOMA in court after litigation against the statute was filed in the U.S. Second Circuit. Since no legal precedent for laws related to sexual orientation exists within this circuit, Obama had the opportunity to examine DOMA with heightened scrutiny, which led to his determination that the anti-gay law was unconstitutional.

Boehner’s letter was in response to a March 11 letter that Pelosi sent to the speaker asking him if he had an estimate for House defense of DOMA and a plan to provide congressional oversight of these expenses. Earlier this month during a news conference, Boehner told the Washington Blade he doesn’t have an estimate on the cost for House defense of DOMA.

In his letter, Boehner asks Pelosi, a sponsor of legislation to repeal DOMA, to join him in backing the redirection of funds from the Justice Department to Congress to defend the anti-gay statute in court.

“I would welcome your joining me in support of redirecting those resources from the DOJ to the House that would otherwise have been necessary expenses on the Attorney General to defend this federal statute,” Boehner writes.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Blade file photo by Michael Key)

In another letter dated April 18 responding to Boehner, Pelosi writes that the speaker didn’t answer the central question in her initial missive on the total estimated cost for House defense of DOMA.

“Unfortunately, your letter did not respond to the central question in my March 11th letter: the cost to taxpayers of hiring outside legal counsel,” Pelosi writes. “Again, I am requesting that you disclose the cost of hiring outside counsel for the 12 cases where DOMA is being challenged.”

Pelosi also maintains that House defense of DOMA against litigation isn’t required and disputes an assertion from Boehner that administration’s decision amounts to the president unilaterally determining the constitutionality of the anti-gay law.

“As you know, only the courts can determine the constitutionality of a statute passed by the Congress,” Pelosi writes.

Finally, Pelosi takes issue with Boehner’s decision to hire Clement as an attorney in the case and says Democrats weren’t informed about the decision beforehand.

“According to reports, a contract engaging Paul D. Clement to serve as the outside counsel reportedly was forwarded to the Committee on House Administration, although not to the Democratic members or staff of the Committee,” Pelosi writes. “I would like to know when the contract with Mr. Clement was signed, and why a copy was not provided to Democrats on the Committee.”

One LGBT advocate lambasted Boehner for declaring that Congress should defund part of the Justice Department so that House can take up defense of DOMA.

Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, said Boehner’s decision amounts to a betrayal of House Republicans promise to work to improve the economy if elected to a majority in Congress.

“The House Republican Leadership continues to show that they’re more interested in scoring cheap political points on the backs of same-sex couples than tackling real problems,” Solmonese said. “As Americans across the country continue to struggle, Speaker Boehner’s prescription has been to keep families he doesn’t like from accessing needed protections. To add insult to injury, he’s now signed on to a right-wing plan to cut funding for the Department of Justice.”

Boehner cannot unilaterally redirect congressionally allocated funds from the Justice Department to the House for the purposes of defending DOMA. Both the House and the Senate would have to approve the fund redistribution legislatively through the appropriations process — and such a measure would need Obama’s signature for enactment.

During a news conference Monday, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said in response to a question from ABC News’ Ann Compton on Boehner’s call to redirect from funds the Justice Department that the administration would work with Congress on the issue.

“I’m not aware of that [letter],” Carney said. “I don’t any comment specifically on funding. I do know that the day that announced that this year. I spoke about it, but we obviously will work with Congress, if Congress so chooses to move forward.”

Pressed further by Compton, Carney deferred comment to the Justice Department. Both the White House and the Justice Department declined to comment further on the development in response to a request by the Blade.

The total amount of funds that Congress could redirect from the Justice Department to the House general counsel as a result of the Obama administration’s decision to no longer defend DOMA in court remains in questions. In testimony March 1 before the House Appropriations Committee, Holder said the funds that the Justice Department would save by not defending DOMA would be insignificant.

“I’m not sure we save any money, frankly.” Holder said. “The people who would be defending the statute, were we to do that, are career employees of the Department of Justice, who will not be spending their time doing that; they will be spending their time doing other things. I’m not sure that I see any savings as a result of the decision that I announced with the president.”

Paul Clement (photo courtesy King & Spalding)

Boehner taps Paul Clement to defend DOMA

In addition to railing against Boehner’s call to defund part of the Justice Department to defend DOMA, LGBT advocates criticized Boehner for hiring Clement as outside counsel to defend the anti-gay law in court as well as the attorney for taking up the speaker’s cause.

According to his bio on King & Spalding’s website, Clement served as the 43rd U.S. solicitor general 2005 to 2008 and argued more than 50 cases before the U.S. Supreme Court. In private practice, Clement has focused on appellate matters, constitutional litigation and strategic counseling.

In September 2009, the Washingtonian reported that Clement was making $5 million at the law firm — while the average salary for other attorneys at the firm made $1.235 million in 2008. D.C. managing partner J. Sedwick Sollers reportedly wouldn’t comment on Clement’s salary.

Clement didn’t respond on short notice to the Blade’s request to comment on why he was interested in defending DOMA or what his legal fees would cost the U.S. government.

Michael Steel, a Boehner spokesperson, confirmed that the speaker had hired Clement to take on defense of DOMA, but didn’t have information the fees for taking him on retainer.

“The costs will be determined by Mr. Clement’s legal strategy,” Steel said. “Earlier today, the Speaker sent a letter to Rep. Pelosi, the Democratic Leader in the House, urging her to work with us to redirect the necessary funds from the Department of Justice — since they have declined to defend the law.”

LGBT advocates had harsh words for both Clement and King & Spalding for facilitating defense of DOMA in court. Solmonese rebuked the firm’s for allowing Clement to defend the ant-gay law as part of his private practice.

“The firm of King & Spalding has brought a shameful stain on its reputation in arguing for discrimination against loving, married couples,” Solmonese said.  “No amount taxpayer money they rake in will mitigate this blemish on the King & Spalding name.”

According to HRC, media reports have indicated that Clement’s hourly fees could top $1,000, which could his role in defending DOMA pricey for the U.S. government if the litigation, as expected, takes years to reach the Supreme Court.

James Esseks, director of the ACLU’s lesbian, gay, bisexual transgender and AIDS project, said Boehner’s decision to take on a private attorney to defend DOMA is notable at a time when deficit reduction is a top priority among U.S. leaders.

“It’s striking that Congress has decided at a time of budget cuts that this where they want to spend their money,” Esseks said. “They want to spend taxpayer dollars to try to defend a law that clearly is unconstitutional instead of trying of getting rid of the law, which they can easily do.”

Esseks said he doesn’t have an estimate for how much retaining Clement would cost the U.S government, but — noting his job history and his position at a prestigious law firm — said Clement’s legal fees would be probably be “pretty high.”

But Gary Buseck, legal director for Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, which has two pending cases challenging DOMA — Gill v. U.S. Office of Personnel Management and Pedersen v. U.S. Office of Personnel Management — had more mild words for Clement.

“Paul Clement is obviously a well-respected attorney,” Buseck said. “We’re happy the House has chosen its counsel so that the DOMA litigation can once again go forward.”

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

Real Estate

How federal layoffs, shutdown threaten D.C.-area landlords

When paychecks disappear, the shock doesn’t stop at the Beltway

Published

on

The government shutdown continues. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

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.

Continue Reading

Real Estate

Real terrors of homeownership come from neglect, not ghosts

Mold, termites, frayed wires scarier than any poltergeist

Published

on

The real terrors of homeownership have nothing to do with ghosts.

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.

Continue Reading

Advice

Sexual desire is waning, should we open our relationship?

Couple faces difficult choices after seven years

Published

on

Waning sexual interest is a problem that affects most longterm couples. (Photo by Wavebreak Media/Bigstock)

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].

Continue Reading

Popular