Sex in MarriageSexual problems are common in many relationships. This section is for discussions about sexuality. Please limit discussions to those asking for help with a problem and those offering advice. Any other threads may be deleted.
Mine did. She freely admitted that after getting married she just "wasn't interested" in having sex with me. According to her, everything else was great. Communication was great. Stress was low. No money problems. No work problems. I did plenty of chores. I made her feel wonderful. Life was grand in every respect. And she still had a sex drive, masturbating twice a week.
And yet, to quote her again, "I just wasn't interested in having sex with you". And despite my advances for 15 years, she continued to reject me. "Sex just isn't a priority for me", she'd say. It sure as heck felt like abuse to me. If not abuse, then the most optimistic phrase I could use would be "neglect", because she says it never occurred to her that a sexless marriage was an unhealthy one.
We were married only a few months when the sex stopped. She was still happy. Happy with me, and happily married.
As a male, if you are willing to frame your partner denying you sex as abusive - I think your entire frame of reference is out of whack.
Denial of sex led to my becoming short-tempered, resentful, angry and distant. All of these things after I had tried being thoughtful, considerate, loving, compassionate, and understanding, for years. My spouse used Susan's argument too: "How am I supposed to want to have sex with someone that doesn't make me feel good?"
...
I have come to realize, that this is the simple truth. How you contribute to your partner feeling about herself correlates to whether or not you get willingly and happily laid without having to beg or pout.
Deejo, is there a thread that explains this further? I am currently battling this very issue, and I'd like to hear more from you on this. Thanks.
If your partner pretends attraction before marriage and after marriage says "you are a great partner" I simply have no desire for you, then they married you under false pretenses. That is abusive. It is no different than you quitting your job after marriage and saying "hey I never really liked working - but I really like hanging out with you - do you mind wearing all the financial stress?"
That said - your wife is not "obligated" to have sex. She is obligated to tell you what turns her on and off and then you at least have a shot at creating desire.
Thing is what a woman wants outside the bedroom - kindness, patience, unconditional love, etc. are exactly the things that when provided in full measure guarantee she will lose her desire for you.
By the way - if you think her love for YOU is unconditional, quit your job and tell her you have no plans to get another.
Only children deserve unconditional love. And even THAT needs to be tempered with real consequences for bad behavior.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nine-E
Deejo, is there a thread that explains this further? I am currently battling this very issue, and I'd like to hear more from you on this. Thanks.
Abusive? to marry under false pretences? Deceptive/deceitful yes. Abusive? Not in the modern understanding of the word. To be less than keen on - and therefore avoid (or reject, which sometimes gets used even when a less obvious swerve is in play) sex with a partner whose sometime behaviour makes you feel uneasy or uncomfortable, or less of a person.... how can that be abuse? No-one's really answered that for me. I suppose there must be instances in which someone has 'pretended' to be attracted before marriage then altered their stance. Quite honestly, who of us will ever know? Lies damned lies and statistics and all that.
As to kindness patience, unconditional love, etc (quote!) being the guarantee that a woman/wife will lose her desire for you? Poppy****!
Yet somehow I agree that children's entitlement to unconditional love is different.
Rejecting sex because your partner is behaving in a manner that kills your desire is wholly different from what I describe below. There is NOTHING wrong with telling a partner you are genuinely attracted to that they are hurting your/their sex life as long as you are specific about what actions are causing that.
However a pattern of post marital deception engaged in solely for the purpose of concealing the fact that you married someone you were not attracted to is abusive. It is not just a "white" lie. It truly HARMS your partner in a very serious way. Because the "pattern" of lies causes them to lose faith in themselves, in their ability to understand you and your feelings. It has a similar corrosive effect on them over time that infidelity does once it is uncovered.
Only you know if you married someone you really weren't that into. If you did, it becomes very easy to let minor day to day interactions become the "reason" for rejecting sex when in fact the real issue is a lack of desire.
For people under 50 - generally my view is that if you can honestly claim your partner is such a jerk you don't want to have sex with them, then leave. Don't stay and talk out both sides of your mouth (he is a really great guy, except when he wants sex at which point he magically manisfests all these problems.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by madimoff
Abusive? to marry under false pretences? Deceptive/deceitful yes. Abusive? Not in the modern understanding of the word. To be less than keen on - and therefore avoid (or reject, which sometimes gets used even when a less obvious swerve is in play) sex with a partner whose sometime behaviour makes you feel uneasy or uncomfortable, or less of a person.... how can that be abuse? No-one's really answered that for me. I suppose there must be instances in which someone has 'pretended' to be attracted before marriage then altered their stance. Quite honestly, who of us will ever know? Lies damned lies and statistics and all that.
As to kindness patience, unconditional love, etc (quote!) being the guarantee that a woman/wife will lose her desire for you? Poppy****!
Yet somehow I agree that children's entitlement to unconditional love is different.
Yes, the unconditional love for children is an interesting topic.
Can you imagine the horror if we openly said to our children, "I won't hug you or kiss you or tuck you in or read you a story or really talk to you or show you any affection unless you treat me with respect, be patient with me, keep up with your chores, etc."???
Yet so many basically do that to the spouse they promised to cherish and honor.
Your spouse is not a prostitute and you are not a john.
None of this should be based on a single event or small set of events. My only point is that when your spouse drops you to the bottom of their priority queue and leaves you there open ended despite your protests, THEY have stopped showing you any kind of love, much less unconditional love.
It is fine to be patient for a while - in fact it is wrong NOT to be patient with your partner. But there is a fine line between being patient and being a doormat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LaCuriosa
Yes, the unconditional love for children is an interesting topic.
Can you imagine the horror if we openly said to our children, "I won't hug you or kiss you or tuck you in or read you a story or really talk to you or show you any affection unless you treat me with respect, be patient with me, keep up with your chores, etc."???
Yet so many basically do that to the spouse they promised to cherish and honor.
QUOTE=MEM11363;159241]Your spouse is not a prostitute and you are not a john. amen to that bro/MEM. ! many a woman gets their dander up
on this pt alone. they say/write rants about this aspect of marriage(sometimes true, others not)and hide behind this phrase/idea to justify their own selfishness paradoxically.
None of this should be based on a single event or small set of events. My only point is that when your spouse drops you to the bottom of their priority queue and leaves you there open ended despite your protests, THEY have stopped showing you any kind of love, much less unconditional love. (here-here! and thus set up the possible makings for an EA/PA. another never ending vicious cycle for humanity/TAM'ers to deal with!)
It is fine to be patient for a while - in fact it is wrong NOT to be patient with your partner. But there is a fine line between being patient and being a doormat.[/QUOTE] agreed. but in time methinks that fine line becomes quite broad, quite clear, and w/ the veil lifted, quite messy.
I've read many good posts here on this thread. to OP i'll direct my entry, so as to not antagonize anyone unnecessarily.
this is the crux of what i have to say.
we all bring our own experiences/perspectives to this forum.
we have our own baggage as it were, of being M/F, rich/poor,
EA/PA victims or "victimers" per se, the list goes on etc.
we should become aware that if our vantage pt differs w/ anothers then perhaps the way we see the world/problem truly isnt the be all/end all to the matter. i.e., no "man" is an island
unto himself.
i've read/learned some interesting things here on this thread
alone, and wish to thank u all for said learning experience.
i've added some good contrasting pts to my somewhat typical male oriented pt of view. maybe theres more to come?
i hope so!
Interesting thread. MEM is right on imo. One thing I would like to add is that people need to get past the belief that a woman's emotional needs trumps a man's physical needs. Both spouses need to get in the boat together and understand each others needs/wants/desires. Posted via Mobile Device
Now here I am going to share some of my own baggage purely for the purpose of explaining how I see this situation.
First I will start with a different statement than a man typically makes here. And that is:
A WOMAN'S EMOTIONAL NEEDS do not consistently trump her PARTNERS EMOTIONAL NEEDS.
Rejecting your partner sexually on a consistent basis and LYING about why is not only a failure to MEET their emotional needs it is a type of emotional abuse.
This is WHOLLY DIFFERENT from telling a partner "I AM SIMPLY NOT ATTRACTED TO YOU AND AM NOT WILLING TO HAVE SEX WITH YOU".
I think any partner in any relationship at any time for any reason has the right to terminate the sexual side of the relationship.
However it is cruel and unusual punishment to construct a never ending series of excuses as to why you are refusing sex when the real reason is an absence of attraction.
Whether the high drive partner is male or female is irrelevant. This is NOT about denial of orgasm this is ENTIRELY about rejection and emotional distress.
It is EVERY BIT AS TRUE when the HD partner is a woman.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobo
Interesting thread. MEM is right on imo. One thing I would like to add is that people need to get past the belief that a woman's emotional needs trumps a man's physical needs. Both spouses need to get in the boat together and understand each others needs/wants/desires. Posted via Mobile Device
I hear you and agree but if you follow the majority of threads I think you'll see that when the HD spouse is female there will be less talk about meeting "his emotional needs". Also, if we're truthful we will admit that 9 times out of 10 the HD spouse is male outside of TAM. Posted via Mobile Device
A WOMAN'S EMOTIONAL NEEDS do not consistently trump her PARTNERS EMOTIONAL NEEDS.---quite right my good man.
Rejecting your partner sexually on a consistent basis and LYING about why is not only a failure to MEET their emotional needs it is a type of emotional abuse. ----here here governor!
This is WHOLLY DIFFERENT from telling a partner "I AM SIMPLY NOT ATTRACTED TO YOU AND AM NOT WILLING TO HAVE SEX WITH YOU". ---marr'd folk included? methinks not m'lord! pls do explain yourself b4 we call for the barristers to settle this matter, indeed!
I think any partner in any ?relationship at any? time for any??? reason has the right to terminate the sexual side of the relationship. ---w/out consequences?
surely u jest! we have many rights do we not? but these
rights are not always right to exercise in all cases,
no? AND, the reason(s)are always critical in determining
the "rightness" of ones actions, esp in marriage.
However it is cruel and unusual punishment to construct a never ending series of excuses as to why you are refusing sex when the real reason is an absence of attraction.--- partially/warily as attraction is only one of many reasons
why H/W lie about not fulfilling their spouses needs.
Whether the high drive partner is male or female is irrelevant. This is NOT about denial of orgasm this is ENTIRELY about rejection and emotional distress. ---or better put, rejection leading to emotional distress and a host of other ensuing issues in both parties pasts/pysches to deal w/and hopefully solve.
I am simply saying something that is fair and true and painful to process all rolled into one.
- Just because we are married does not mean I get to fuuk you
- If you are HONEST with me about why you won't fuuk, you are behaving in an acceptable (not good - but acceptable manner)
- At that point your partner can make a fully informed decision about the marriage.
- If your partner shuts you down, you have the right to request a waiver giving you access to partners outside your marriage
- A partner who refuses you sex, and refuses the waiver, should become an ex partner promptly
Loss of desire is not evil in itself. The ruthless and brutal deception surrounding - whole nother story - that IS evil.
[QUOTE=cb45;159514]
Quote:
Originally Posted by MEM11363
A WOMAN'S EMOTIONAL NEEDS do not consistently trump her PARTNERS EMOTIONAL NEEDS.---quite right my good man.
Rejecting your partner sexually on a consistent basis and LYING about why is not only a failure to MEET their emotional needs it is a type of emotional abuse. ----here here governor!
This is WHOLLY DIFFERENT from telling a partner "I AM SIMPLY NOT ATTRACTED TO YOU AND AM NOT WILLING TO HAVE SEX WITH YOU". ---marr'd folk included? methinks not m'lord! pls do explain yourself b4 we call for the barristers to settle this matter, indeed!
I think any partner in any ?relationship at any? time for any??? reason has the right to terminate the sexual side of the relationship. ---w/out consequences?
surely u jest! we have many rights do we not? but these
rights are not always right to exercise in all cases,
no? AND, the reason(s)are always critical in determining
the "rightness" of ones actions, esp in marriage.
However it is cruel and unusual punishment to construct a never ending series of excuses as to why you are refusing sex when the real reason is an absence of attraction.--- partially/warily as attraction is only one of many reasons
why H/W lie about not fulfilling their spouses needs.
Whether the high drive partner is male or female is irrelevant. This is NOT about denial of orgasm this is ENTIRELY about rejection and emotional distress. ---or better put, rejection leading to emotional distress and a host of other ensuing issues in both parties pasts/pysches to deal w/and hopefully solve.
Re: Rejecting sex isn’t abusive, is it? 
always-------------
marr'd folk included? methinks not m'lord! pls do explain yourself b4 we call for the barristers to settle this matter, indeed!
