Talk About Marriage banner
Status
Not open for further replies.

article on infidelity and thoughts on sex in marriage

19K views 240 replies 24 participants last post by  davecarter 
#1 ·
#185 ·
Allen,

The only part that comes into question is that withholding sex may be considered withholding affection.

In that case, the spouse withholding may need to show that they have done something to try to rectify that situation. Affection in other forms, likely would have to be proven. Since the accused abuser doesn't define what abuse is, but the abused does, it seems the accuser very easily could prove abuse.

The whole thing, unless there are pictures, witnesses, and documentation by hospitals or professionals, can easily be misused. This is good in cases where the abused has no health insurance and little money. It's usually the situations where abuse occurs most frequently.

It also creates a problem that likely cannot be solved easily. It's a real shame for all involved. The truly abused need help and should get it.

My opinion, have an attorney and a psychologist in your back pocket if you decide to get married or live with someone. Otherwise, you're taking a huge chance.

It's just one more thing in the long list of modern society's battle against marriage and the procreation of the species. It seems the law is stacked against commitment and monogamy.
 
#186 ·
Allen_A said:
I didn't assert I had any "right to limit the definition".. that's how the damn word is USED man.

I don't need to be a damn lawyer to read social services abuse definitions.
Swearing. Don't think so try to use those words at a judge in a court and see if you are not warned. Damn is a swear word.

Allen_A said:
Originally Posted by Squeakr View Post
Yes I know those were close to my words (I used the word rant as well and did keep portions of your paragraphs, so not EXACTLY my same words as you claim you used),
YES they are exaclty your words.. blah blah blah is what you used and I mirrored it.
Like I said close to my words as I also used the word rant, even admitting it in the passage you quoted, but you missed that as well.

Allen_A said:
I can call withholding sex a banana if I want to, but that does not make withholding sex a banana.

Pretty typical stuff. You can't argue clean, so you resort to personal attacks. You really ought to see someone about that.

intelligent comments don't start with "blah blah blah".. "blah blah blah" is a CHILDISH comment.

That is the most ignorant and biased assessment of a post I have ever read on this forum to date.

You guys are just looking like drama queens now.

Anyone comparing a sexless marriage to infidelity is a drama queen.

I don't belittle anyone anymore than YOU do, and you don't seem to think you offend anyone either so...

I have never resorted to name calling either, despite how much you may have tempted me.

Of course, retreat to your tower rather than entering the real world with the rest of us. Why am I not surprised you would retreat there rather than burning it to the ground.
Just a few examples of your exaggerated claims, name calling, and examples of childish behavior just within this thread. I never claimed to not offend anyone, be childish, or any of that, so your claims against me are just childish in themselves like a school yard exchange as they are meant to do nothing but goad someone into an argument, yet you refute every one of my claims as they didn't happen and cry hypocrisy when it didn't exist. I know my position does offend or upset people at times and except it, but don't do it on purpose just to put them down nor do I dwell on it and belittle or goad them because their viewpoint is different.

I am not trying to be mean but you are doing things on purpose and then acting as if you never did them or it was someone else's fault that they happened. You could just state your point like everyone else and not add snide quips or jabs at the poster and end everything with LOL and insulting icons such as :rofl: or calling people buddy. Why not just be adult and not resort to childish tactics, which is why I said you were childish by those actions, as they speak for themselves.

You talk about cogent discussions, but you create arguments and not discussions so why not follow your own advice?
 
#188 ·
I'm not sure I agree with that, Squeakr.

I thought anything on that list could be used in a court of law to determine eligibility for an order of protection. Maybe I'm mistaken?
 
#201 ·
Yes, I agree, but not all are punishable actions in themselves. The charge that was filed based upon that action would be the punishable offense, such as you would be charged with domestic violence or an order of protection, and not direct and fearful staring which is the action that caused the order to be issued.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2ntnuf
#194 ·
I believe the problem comes in when we think. haha What I mean is, if there is real reason to believe someone is abused, the guidelines can be used to help determine if further evaluation is in order. It sort of harkens back to what I wrote about having an attorney and a psychologist in your back pocket, doesn't it? :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Allen_A
#197 ·
My primary concern for this "withholding sex = abuse" business is the slippery slope that argument creates.

You legislate that and then you will have men all over the country charging their wives with abuse, or threatening to charge them with abuse... in order to pressure women to have sex when they don't want to do that.

You would be legislating rape in some cases.

To my mind if even ONE of those claims of abuse resulted in an actual case of rape I would not want my name on that law in any way.

You are taking people back to the middle ages then... with women as property that men can use as they please... legally sanctioned.

The risk is certainly there for the law to get exploited in some cases. to my mind it's the risk of some woman allowing herself to be raped because her husband threatens to charge her with abuse. It isn't worth it.

I would rather watch 100 people go without sex than see even ONE PERSON get raped.

So, I would be rejecting that bill and erring on the side of caution.
 
#198 ·
There was a point in my life where a man withholding sex from me "could" have been used in a way to be psychologically abusive.

And though I know it would have been possible with me depending on circumstances... legislating it would be so difficult and yes would have to protect victims from those who were intent on rape.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Allen_A
#199 ·
Yup, I honestly don't think you could legislate this without that backfiring on some women in an ugly way. In an ugly way that I want no part in legislating... I wouldn't be able to sleep at night knowing my name was at all involved in that law.

While a sexless marriage is devastating, hurtful, and sad, I don't think I could ever advocate a law to punish people who didn't put out. Just too much ugly fallout from that situation to even think about.
 
#200 ·
Many of those actions defined as abuse in the link are slippery slopes at best. I think that is necessary due to the denial of the abuser. I do agree that there are some cases which cannot be denied, many, in fact.

Again, if you are married or in a relationship, you are well advised to keep an attorney and a psychologist, pretty much, on retainer. It's become the new, "utility", like paying for water or electricity. It's, pretty much, a necessity today.
 
#202 ·
There are men who rape there wives. Reading this story about woman shot her estranged husband dead in a marina parking lot has ring of truth to it.

So I agree with Allen that compelling sex is not possible. That is also why lawmakers no longer support divorce in which adultery is cause for fault.

The government chooses not to get into the sex lives of citizens. Marriage is what you make of it.
 
#204 ·
There are men who rape there wives. Reading this story about woman shot her estranged husband dead in a marina parking lot has ring of truth to it.

So I agree with Allen that compelling sex is not possible. That is also why lawmakers no longer support divorce in which adultery is cause for fault.

The government chooses not to get into the sex lives of citizens. Marriage is what you make of it.
I didn't understand that term describing the type of sex. "compelling" Does that mean someone says, "you have to have sex with me due to the vows, my fist, a gun, a knife, if you want more allowance or that new lionel train set, etc.?
 
#209 ·
An interesting thought I had after all the back and forth about abuse and what it is was actually in the legal system. From my research, and I would love to have someone correct if this is wrong, please be trained in a legal associated profession to stop all the speculation, but abuse is a concept covering behaviors and actions and not actually a convictable crime, meaning that there is no abuse crime charge in existence.
From what I have seen in my research is that no one can actually be convicted of the charge of abuse, not saying it doesn't exist, just that it is not a criminal offense but a concept on behaviors and actions. When the abuse occurs, the abuser is charged with a crime based upon the abusive actions, such as domestic violence, better, assault, neglect, etc. Since by this logic something could be considered abuse and yet not currently have a convictable crime associated with it, does this mean that it fails to be defined solely by the legal system then, since no crime of abuse exists.

I admit I could be wrong in this but have never heard anyone actually charged with the crime of abuse. Is there an actual criminal offense that carries a named charge of "abuse"?? I am truly interested in find out out as I couldn't find one in my research, although I know I missed lots.
 
#216 ·
Good point, but I wonder at the same time, when I read threads where I know the BS has symptoms of PTSD. Maybe it's traumatic stress?

I don't know. I just wonder because I was reading on last night and it seemed the woman was harmed by something. I felt terrible as I read and realized she is going to have trouble the rest of her life.

Harmed = much more than just feelings hurt, permanent mental or physical scarring and/or physical signs of force

Hurt = feelings hurt

Generally, my definitions.
 
#220 ·
Thor, I agree with that. At issue for me is, if it's the well educated and experienced psychologist that defines the cause of evident trauma, abuse, then it should be an offense addressed by the law, under the same rules(laws) established for standard domestic violence and abuse.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Squeakr
#222 ·
I disagree. Just because something was abusive doesn't mean it should go to court. Not everything needs to or should be brought into the legal arena.

Now if we are talking about child sex abuse or other abuses of children, bring the perps to court and give them the harshest punishment possible. But if we're talking about adults I just don't see it being possible to bring every case to court. There are so many shades of gray on all sides of the issue.
 
#221 ·
In which case, I believe the definitions of domestic violence need to be addressed at regular intervals and defined by a team of doctors and lawyers, then, lawmakers, to establish reliable, standard practices for use in life. It doesn't make any sense to believe that something can possibly be used, if well, but that can be, or but it didn't. No, there needs to be an adjustment.

Laws should reflect this serious issue that is rampant throughout our society. Divorce law, likely needs changed to reflect these changes and protect the abused from further trauma.

Obviously, just my opinion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Squeakr
#225 ·
Some people are legitimately traumatized by seemingly minor things, while others are not traumatized yet have experienced much worse things. Psychologists or other qualified professionals should treat anyone who suffers emotional or psychological malady, but it would be very dangerous to prosecute people based on if a person was traumatized or not.

I know one woman who suffers from significant trauma which is described as child sex abuse, yet the events would be considered quite typical and normal for a child growing up in Europe. She needs therapy but the "perp" doesn't deserve punishment.
 
#226 ·
I hear you. You think it's too subjective to label as abuse and make punishable by law? If so, that worries me. It opens wide the door for as much mental and emotional abuse as a person can dish out.

"Hey, so and so, could take it. Why can't you?" See, the abuse is generally defined by the abused, not the abuser. We have to be careful not to set the abused up for further harm.
 
#227 ·
do young people actually get married, with the delusion that sex and passion will remain for the rest of their lives??

Do they understand that odds are very good that after 10 years, ONE of them, if not BOTH, will have significantly decreased interest in sex...

Ive asked young engaged people this and they all expect to buck the odds, find ways to keep the fire alive...GOOD LUCK!!!

Marriage should have term limits, renewable after the first 10 years...OR NOT..and then every 5 afterwards...NO ONE has to have unwanted sex, NO ONE has to go without sex

once men FINALLY realize this, I think marriage will go the way of the dodo bird...
 
#228 ·
But the reverse is also possible. Someone who is weak or was previously traumatized could have a strong reaction to something which reasonable people would find not abusive. Should the suspect be convicted of abuse?

In "Not Just Friends" the author tells us that she has treated thousands of BS who have the symptoms of PTSD but it is not officially PTSD because there was no violence. While I believe cheating should be a significant factor in divorce settlements, I don't think cheaters should be jailed for abuse in typical situations.

I am all for there being legal standards under which abuse can be prosecuted. Especially if a child is the victim, in which case the harshest punishments should be applied. But I think there should be very different and much more flexible guidelines for therapists to reference when treating people.
 
#229 ·
This is where we disagree. I cannot condone the abuse. I cannot defend it. I had a long response written and felt it was starting to defend the abuser. I don't like that at all.

I think if you don't consider an action worthy of some sort of prosecution, it needs taken off the list of abuse. Maybe it needs to be on a list of non-violence related causes of trauma?

You see, what I read is that the only thing punishable by the law, should be an act of physical assault. You see, the law states that if a husband tells his wife, he is going to kill himself, it is abuse and punishable by law. That's not a threat to her safety. It's a mind screw for her because she loves him. So, your premise, would have to change the law.

You can say that he has a gun and might shoot himself and her before he does that. What if he doesn't? What if he plans on doing himself in by some other means that doesn't use that kind of violence? I'd venture to say that most people who attempt suicide, do so by pills of some sort. I'd say the next probably do it with carbon monoxide. I think there is a fear of pain and suffering, inherent even in folks who are at the point of committing suey side.

So, why is that a punishable offense? Do you think, by what you stated, that it should not be, because some people will just tell the husband to go right ahead and get it over with? Others may cry their eyes out.
 
#230 ·
Honestly I've never heard of it being punishable as abuse to make a threat of suicide.

I don't think the law is the answer to every negative event in life. Sometimes a person needs to be punished, sometimes people need to be taken out of society, and sometimes deterrence is needed. The law can do all of those. But some things are too full of gray areas or are simply impossible to prove. Crimes should be defined with clear objective standards which do not depend on how the victim feels after the fact. Also, in the case of a remorseful WS who is working hard to R it would be counterproductive to prosecute for emotional abuse.

As far as I am aware, our current laws seem to cover abuse pretty well. I don't want to expand the reach of the law into the psychologist's office. But I also don't want psychologists to be limited to definitions used in the prosecution of criminals.
 
#231 ·
It is in my state, Thor. Maybe some others, it's not. I can only speak about what I know of in my own state.

Well, I think there are many gray areas and psychologists are a part of criminal prosecution, whether we think it's right or wrong.

I do think that it is best to define things more accurately. That's more my position on this than anything. Define it and eliminate the gray areas, as much as possible.
 
#232 ·
I have to confess that the last few pages of this thread kind of blurred together for me. There are some very black and white definitions being thrown around, and this is probably because people are filtering through their own experiences. An argument where people are using different definitions is never going to be resolved.

First, interpretation of marriage vows. We vow fidelity. We also vow for it to be for better or for worse.
  • To some, fidelity means "I will not have sex with other people." Having sex with the spouse is not automatically included. A sexless marriage is not breaking vows to someone who interprets it this way.
  • To others, fidelity means "I will only have sex with you." Here, sex with the spouse is more of an expectation.
The vow that the marriage continue for better or for worse, means that the marriage will continue even if it becomes sexless, for whatever reason. Someone who chooses to cheat has broken the marriage vow, for either interpretation of fidelity.

Next, a sexless marriage. This can happen for a number of reasons. People seem to be fixating on the one scenario where one spouse is deliberately denying sex to the other.
  • People may have mismatched libidos or develop them over time, and sex may be less frequent than one partner desires, including zero. It isn't done to be knowingly hurtful, and presumably the higher libido partner is being respectful about not forcing sex to occur.
  • Spouses may prioritize sex differently, with the end result that sex disappears because other priorities interfere.
  • One spouse may have a medical issue that precludes sex. This medical issue may be temporary/curable or it may not be.
  • One spouse may have a perfectly normal libido, but may be abusing their partner by refusing to engage in sex as a form of causing pain.
If you believe in the first version of fidelity, none of these is breaking the marriage vow. If you believe in the second version of fidelity, then only the last version of sexless is breaking the marriage vow.

And the last thing I want to say is just because one party to a contract clearly breaks it, does not mean the other party can also behave however they want. There are usually clauses built in (the next pickles will not be delivered if there remains an outstanding bill for the previous pickles) for those situations in business contracts. And either party can choose to use legal means to end the contract prior to its previously determined duration, usually done with cause (there is still an unpaid pickle bill!). However, the marriage contract doesn't stand up to legal interpretation very well, hence the huge industry that is divorce law.

One partner causing the marriage to be sexless does not automatically break the vague contract. One party cheating does - the contract is not vague on that.

All this still boils down to communication thought. Do both spouses have, and maintain, the same definition of fidelity? Do both spouses communicate respectfully with each other about their sexual needs and how to prioritize them? Do both spouses understand that the marriage may be sexless despite the desires of both? To both spouses still have respect for one another? If respect is still there, cheating is unlikely. A request for divorce due to the intolerability of being sexually unfulfilled is done with respect, and is less painful than a cheater going outside the marriage and not asking for a divorce.

To make it more personal...

When my ex and I started having sex, it was a long distance relationship and we only saw each other on weekends. We had sex four or five times each weekend. One of us thought "Awesome, we have sex almost twice a day! This relationship is going to work great!" while the other thought "We have sex four or five times a week, this is just perfect!"

Time moves along, and marriage, careers and children become involved, which we all know have a way of reducing frequency of sex, no matter what the parents want. There was also a medical issue for one of us and the doctor contraindicated sex for a time. The other spouse cheated to solve their lack of sex. By the time the medical issue was resolved, the affair was habit and the marriage stayed sexless. The other spouse was told there was a new medical issue, and stayed faithful despite the continued lack of sex. When the affair was discovered and the marriage went kaboom, the cheater justified their actions by complaining that the other spouse had deceived them with the sex twice a day introduction and had withheld adequate sex ever since they moved in together, and especially after having the children.

So, was the marriage sexless? Was there infidelity? Where was the abuse? Who broke the marriage vows? When did the cheating spouse stop respecting the faithful spouse?
 
#233 ·
One partner causing the marriage to be sexless does not automatically break the vague contract. One party cheating does - the contract is not vague on that.
There are two marriage contracts. One is the verbal contract made in front of witnesses. These are the wedding vows. Usually they include "To Have and To Hold". The clause "To Have" means to have sex with. The clause "To Hold" means to provide comfort, such as hugging or the emotional equivalent of hugging even if there is no physical hug.

Thus the verbal contract does indeed include being sexual and providing emotional support to the spouse. If one is strict in interpreting the Bible, one would feel compelled to follow the instructions in the Bible which include 1Cor7, which requires spouses to be sexual with each other.

So there is no ambiguity that sex is agreed upon in the marriage vows.

Fidelity is never mentioned in the vows, but there is a clause "Forsaking all others", which covers all areas of the vows. It covers "To Hold". It also covers "Love, Honor, and Cherish". Thus an emotional affair is in violation of the vows. Even failing to emotional break from one's parents could be a violation of vows. Carrying the torch of a previous lover even without having any ongoing contact (thus no EA or PA) would be a violation of the vows.

Then there is the 2nd contract. This is the one imposed by the State. The laws dictate the marriage contract. What are the grounds for annulment, divorce, alimony? This is an entirely different set of rules than the marriage vows. These rules change whenever the legislature writes a new law or a judge makes a new interpretation. These rules change when the couple moves to a new state or a new jurisdiction. In a No-Fault state, infidelity has zero bearing on the divorce and is not seen as a violation of any contract. There is no accounting for it in distribution of assets, alimony, or who gets to live in the house.
 
#235 ·
I hate to see the thread fall away and probably scare away others from posting by the constant back and fourth of the members arguing opinions on legal definitions. I think you've proved that neither will be swayed, and it's obvious that Allen A is firmly entrenched in his opinion, and he has a right to it, so let's just leave it at that shall we.

The discussion is about sexless marriages and how they may lead to or affect infidelity rates in the real world we live in, not in some hypothetical think tank world of mind numbing bickering about legal definitions. After laws vary from state to state....so even lawmakers can't be universally in agreement of what is and is not legal. And so it is seeming unlikely that we will all universally agree on every point.

There is a very high correlation it seems between sexless marriages, or very infrequent sex, and higher rates of infidelity. I'm not saying that it's the best choice to go cheat. But I think you will find slim numbers saying that it is as wrong then as it is in a marriage in which sex is regular and with passion.

Thoughts?
 
#240 ·
EmptyShelledDad,

Did you ever tell your wife that the regained weight was disappointed you?

Wasn't she very anxious to reconcile?

Why do you continue to have relations with her if she is not making the effort? Thirty pounds of flab will make most women unattractive. Some woman can carry an extra 10 or 12lbs but 20 and upward show lack of self respect, lack of pride in appearance.

Someone commented that RDMU did not have sex with his wife for two years and that was the reason she cheated.
 
#241 ·
My ex-W and I didnt have sex for 18 months...and before that it was 'functional-sex'.
Put this together with constant arguing and fighting, add a bit of an OM who took an interest, mix-it all up with more than just "my-marriage-is-bad-and-here's-why" and you have an affair, separation and divorce.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top