Its obviously open to interpretation, there are biblical verses that say its not an option to deprive your spouse except by mutual consent. In a loving relationship we will do things for our spouse even if we do not derive a pleasure out of it. Obviously the reciprocation comes in another form.
I'm not a fan of the LD/HD dynamic where the LD is allowed to starve down the HD to nothing, and if HD attempts to negotiate or get LD to compromise upward it is viewed as selfish.
There are biblical verses that say its not an option to deprive your spouse except by mutual consent.
I am aware of those verses. And I assume a wife who subscribes to them will get a certain satisfaction from having sex with her husband even if she gets no sexual pleasure from it. But what if she doesn't subscribe to them?
Quote:
I'm not a fan of the LD/HD dynamic where the LD is allowed to starve down the HD to nothing.
What does it mean to say that "the LD" is "allowed" not to hvae sex? No one needs permission not to have sex. Do you mean you're not a fan of relationships where the LD person refuses to have sex and is not made to admit inadequacy, or shoulder blame, or feel guilty about it, or suffer some punishment? What would be the point of all that? Who benefits from it?
Put another way, I don't think wives "owe it" to their husbands to have sex with them, or vice-vesa.
I think wives do "owe it" to some degree. It's an obligation by default, because no wife has the "right" to expect their husband to remain faithful by being celibate. And so if extramarital affairs are against their morals, the wife is directly "forcing" the family to split up. You can only say the wife does not owe it if she does not owe her family any effort to preserve the family.
Of all the emotional, financial, etc., needs spouses fill for each other, sex is unique in that ONLY your spouse can fill the need for sex. Friendships, financial assistance, help around the house, can all be provided occasionally by friends or relatives. But not sex.
So I think that refusing sex with your spouse is the equivalent of cheating. In both cases, you have broken the implicit agreement to be exclusively sexual. You don't get to redefine "faithful" to include "no sex". Otherwise, I can logically say that because I'm not having sex with anybody, I'm faithful to every person in the country! Being "faithful" means YOU ARE ACTUALLY HAVING SEX. If you have no sex, you are in fact unfaithful, or at least NOT sexually faithful.
What we are talking about here is what the couple should do if one of the partners loses all sexual dsire and ceases to enjoy having sex. That can happen for any of number of reasons. If it does happen, I don't think the desire-less partner has a moral obligation to have sex with his/her spouse.
In that case, the desire-less partner has a moral obligation to accept an open marriage or suggest divorce, because they don't have the right to expect "celibate faithfulness". That's just reality -- you have a moral obligation to embrace a choice. Otherwise what you're saying is the desire-less partner has a "right" to just duck their head in the sand and pretend they're in make-believe land.
Maybe you can see why I kind of have my doubts sometimes that any women are interested in sex at all!
Not really. Just as very few people are leg-less, very few women have zero sexual desire. Why extrapolate to all women from a sample size of one (your wife)?
The difference is you can see other people have legs. With sex, you only see the sex you have, and otherwise you just have to believe what other people tell you, and if there's one thing people are generally not totally honest about, it's their sex lives.
Put another way, I don't think wives "owe it" to their husbands to have sex with them, or vice-vesa.
I think wives do "owe it" to some degree. It's an obligation by default, because no wife has the "right" to expect their husband to remain faithful by being celibate. And so if extramarital affairs are against their morals, the wife is directly "forcing" the family to split up. You can only say the wife does not owe it if she does not owe her family any effort to preserve the family.
Of all the emotional, financial, etc., needs spouses fill for each other, sex is unique in that ONLY your spouse can fill the need for sex. Friendships, financial assistance, help around the house, can all be provided occasionally by friends or relatives. But not sex.
So I think that refusing sex with your spouse is the equivalent of cheating. In both cases, you have broken the implicit agreement to be exclusively sexual. You don't get to redefine "faithful" to include "no sex". Otherwise, I can logically say that because I'm not having sex with anybody, I'm faithful to every person in the country! Being "faithful" means YOU ARE ACTUALLY HAVING SEX. If you have no sex, you are in fact unfaithful, or at least NOT sexually faithful.
oh, give me a break. that's about as big a stretch as I've ever come across on these boards. my xH was a total narcissist, emotionally cruel at times, very immature and totally non-supportive through a challenging 15-year marriage; yes, I lost desire for him. I'm not buying that he can justify his abandonment, his adultery, his complete selfishness because of that. I understand your frustration, but don't try to draw these parallels for situations you probably know nothing about.
M60 H52 D20 M14 yrs OW-old gf from 1986 bomb-5/18/08 H filed for D-9/10/08 D final 4/24/09 xH remarried (not OW) 2012
Should the fact that the wife has no sexual desire mean that she should never have sexual intercourse?
I don't think anyone has a moral obligation to have sex with anyone else -- even one's spouse. Put another way, I don't think wives "owe it" to their husbands to have sex with them, or vice-vesa. But a wife who gets no sexual pleasure out of sex might still want to have it for other reasons, e.g., she might simply enjoy pleasing her husband; she might feel that it was her duty as a wife; or she might simpy like the physical closeness.
hm is right... It so depends on the circumstances. My H is well, Extremely HD. Although I do not want sex every day, I mostly do to make him happy.
Don't get me wrong, its always great, but his track record of porn,etc has put a HUGE damper on everything. Sometimes I get so depressed about it, BECAUSE he is NOT sex starved why he still feels the need to look at porn, this is the troublesome part.
My H can be cruel at times and just completely selfish and yes if my mind is not in it, no I don't want to do it.
me: 37 H: 44 Married for 18 years this june S7 S3 porn issues, and much more... since 7/06
Happiness can be found, even in the darkest of times, if one only remembers to turn on the light.
oh, give me a break. that's about as big a stretch as I've ever come across on these boards. my xH was a total narcissist, emotionally cruel at times, very immature and totally non-supportive through a challenging 15-year marriage; yes, I lost desire for him. I'm not buying that he can justify his abandonment, his adultery, his complete selfishness because of that. I understand your frustration, but don't try to draw these parallels for situations you probably know nothing about.
I understand what you're saying, and I didn't explain myself well. Of course you have the choice. There is no legal obligation, and I would NEVER want there to be one. But when you refuse sex, and you may have very good reasons for yourself and it may even be advisable and the best for you personally, it's difficult to take the moral high ground and say, "My refusing sex was justifiable, and your decision to commit adultery is not justifiable." It's not about who's "right" and who's "wrong" -- that tit-for-tat can be an endless vicious circle in a troubled marriage.
In the case of your xH, I would totally agree that he was not meeting your needs. He was neglecting his obligation to hear you out and understand your needs. But perhaps likewise, from his view -- as wrongheaded as it might seem to many people -- you might not have been meeting his needs.
What strikes me about hearing from couples who've split up is the different stories you hear from each party. Is it any surprise that most people say their ex was the "jerk" or the "bitch"? So, obviously, the problem is one of viewpoint, priorities and differing personal values -- not "right" or "wrong".
I think most people would agree with what I'm trying to say, namely, that both husbands and wives have a special obligation to take care of their spouses sexual needs, simply because they are (should be) totally dependent on each other for that need. That doesn't mean being sexually available 24/7, regardless of mood or circumstances.
Here's a typical argument which illustrates my point:
HD husband: "Would you stop feeding your child just because you weren't in the mood, or if the child had been mean to you?" LD wife: "No" HD husband: "Then why would you stop having sex with me just because you felt I wasn't doing everything right?" LD wife: "Come on, you're not going to die if you don't have sex! It's not the same thing."
And, of course, the LD wife is technically correct. The problem is, she doesn't fully understand the struggle it might be for an HD husband to go without sex for a long time. It really is a little bit more than a selfish itch to be scratched, and some women don't understand that. I have a friend in an SSM whose wife told him "You should just learn to control yourself." That's really what I'm talking about.
it was the entitlement that he expressed that was the most resentment-provoking. and believe me, I tried, but my body simply would not function, and then he'd become angry. which, of course, was less than helpful. it just became a death spiral which reinforced the one-sidedness of the relationship, and one shoulder rub or doing the dishes was supposed to make up for years of an environment in which I felt I didn't matter except to provide for his needs without having any of my own.
M60 H52 D20 M14 yrs OW-old gf from 1986 bomb-5/18/08 H filed for D-9/10/08 D final 4/24/09 xH remarried (not OW) 2012
