# Spinoff: The MEM Clause and how it really works



## Livvie (Jan 20, 2014)

In another thread a poster talked about the MEM Clause and I didn't want to clog his thread asking about it there.

The MEM Clause (named after a poster here, MEM, who discussed this situation and his response to it) is when your spouse no longer is interested in having a sex life with you, lets you know that, and you respond by stating that you know you love each other and your life together, you want to remain married, but are NOT going to live a sexless life, so you will outsource just the sex part.

How would that work IN REAL life? Doesn't finding a sex partner and then meeting your sex partner for sex take a lot of time or energy away from the marriage? Doesn't it drive a huge wedge between you? What about diseases? I know the whole idea of outsourcing is because your spouse isn't having sex with you, byt if you kiss your spouse, share a bathroom and a bed with them, they are exposed to whatever you pick up from your sex partner. What about being accidentally seen with the sex partner by friends, family, people from work? 

I guess I'm asking if anyone believes this clause in action is really a viable solution. Isn't it pretty much going to ruin the marriage just as much as being sexless would?


----------



## Affaircare (Jan 11, 2010)

I don’t believe the intent of “the MEM clause” is an actual plan of action for how to move forward in the marriage. In other words, it’s not something to actually execute. It’s more like a statement in hyperbole to show/spotlight how impossible it is to just cut off sex and expect to continue as a married couple (assuming there’s just lack of desire...not a medical condition).

See how obvious it is that outsourcing sex WILL NOT WORK? That’s the point. Unilaterally ending sex will not work.


----------



## minimalME (Jan 3, 2012)

People have had mistresses for eons. This is not a new thing.

So, I guess in answer to your question, it would work the way it's always worked.

Not that I think MEM or Deejo would do this. It's not really seen as acceptable behavior here, but I've worked in third world countries where it's common and expected.

But it wasn't that long ago that it was the same in the US.

I was watching a documentary about Jackie Kennedy, and - wow. 😳



Livvie said:


> How would that work IN REAL life?


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

Livvie said:


> How would that work IN REAL life? Doesn't finding a sex partner and then meeting your sex partner for sex take a lot of time or energy away from the marriage? Doesn't it drive a huge wedge between you? What about diseases? I know the whole idea of outsourcing is because your spouse isn't having sex with you, byt if you kiss your spouse, share a bathroom and a bed with them, they are exposed to whatever you pick up from your sex partner. What about being accidentally seen with the sex partner by friends, family, people from work?
> 
> I guess I'm asking if anyone believes this clause in action is really a viable solution. Isn't it pretty much going to ruin the marriage just as much as being sexless would?


To answer the last question first, it _can_ be viable, and it _could_ ruin the marriage - but since it's already ruined, why not try it?

Finding a reliable and good sex partner is difficult, and 10x more so for most men but not impossible given some time and effort. Sustaining one for a long time is difficult too, but again, easier for women. The time and effort needed is significant, but the time could be spent on golf instead, but that doesn't meet the need for sex. There is already a wedge, and doing this could widen the gap - or it could ease it; it will depend on the couple. Diseases are far less a problem than many make it out to be, and there is testing available. Having been in the swinging community for many years, I've never heard of even one instance - regular dating is far worse in this regard as less caution is often the case. Besides, if you are no longer having sex in your marriage, your partner is at minimal risk. If you both agree to this as a solution, you agree to accept the risks as well. And having had many secondary relationships and sexual experiences ourselves, this has never been a problem for us, nor have we heard about any that have affected anyone else (and this info would get around!). That's not to say there is no risk, but you have to weigh it for each case and person versus the benefits (cheaters do this all the time, but take on even more risk). The social implications can be much more difficult to handle. I've often been out with a date and encountered people I know, and just introduce my date as a friend. It's not their business, and they could tell my wife and she'd just confirm that I was out with a friend (some know our arrangement so it's not an issue). I suppose if the MEM clause is _unilaterally_ invoked there will be conflict - in which case you may as well divorce. IMO, just because one person in a couple no longer wants sex, that does not mean the other has to give it up, and they are free to do so regardless of consequences.

I'll add that my wife and I discussed and agreed early on that we would not accept a sexless relationship (unless we were _both_ good with that). We could seek sex elsewhere (and have, for recreational purposes) and deal with any consequences. It isn't right or fair to deprive one of us sex if the other won't or can't, but given our great relationship in all other areas we wouldn't want to break up over the issue.


----------



## Livvie (Jan 20, 2014)

Gotcha. It's not meant to work, then, really. 

So why not just say, I can't live a sexless life, either we fix it or we need to divorce? Why speak in hyperbole?


----------



## minimalME (Jan 3, 2012)

After thinking about this a little more, to me, pornography has filled the gap for many. 

It's a way for people to think of themselves as not cheating/committing adultery, when in actuality, they are.


----------



## minimalME (Jan 3, 2012)

Apparently, verbalizing the power struggle is more satisfying. And perhaps it's offered as a warning?



Livvie said:


> So why not just say, I can't live a sexless life, either we fix it or we need to divorce? Why speak in hyperbole?


----------



## Casual Observer (Sep 13, 2012)

minimalME said:


> After thinking about this a little more, to me, pornography has filled the gap for many.
> 
> It's a way for people to think of themselves as not cheating/committing adultery, when in actuality, they are.


Again, I think that's a narrow view of pornography and ignores its use, by a lot of people, as a way to avoid dealing with sex issues in their marriage. It's not cheating, it's not adultery. It's a diversion. It is still potentially very dangerous because avoiding the issue is going to create routines that get you further and further away from resolution.


----------



## Casual Observer (Sep 13, 2012)

Livvie said:


> Gotcha. It's not meant to work, then, really.
> 
> So why not just say, I can't live a sexless life, either we fix it or we need to divorce? Why speak in hyperbole?


This isn't about speaking. It's about listening. One party isn't getting it, so the other goes to increasing lengths (hyperbole) to get the point across. As in, "Can't you understand how absurd the solution I'm proposing is? If you take no responsibility, if I have to solve it entirely on my own, what choices are you leaving me?"


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

Casual Observer said:


> Again, I think that's a narrow view of pornography and ignores its use, by a lot of people, as a way to avoid dealing with sex issues in their marriage. It's not cheating, it's not adultery. It's a diversion. It is still potentially very dangerous because avoiding the issue is going to create routines that get you further and further away from resolution.


It is a form of cheating.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

Livvie said:


> Gotcha. It's not meant to work, then, really.
> 
> So why not just say, I can't live a sexless life, either we fix it or we need to divorce? Why speak in hyperbole?


I agree, threatening to cheat seems counter productive, and why say something you dont mean?


----------



## minimalME (Jan 3, 2012)

Although I completely agree with you that pornography is a way to avoid dealing with marital problems, I disagree that it's simply a diversion.

I mean serious? Watching others have sex is just an innocent pastime? An innocuous form of entertainment? No, it's not. _Especially_ when you're married and neglecting your spouse.

It is cheating, and it is adultery. 

But you're not alone in justifying its use. As I said, for many it's taken the place of the mistress.



Casual Observer said:


> Again, I think that's a narrow view of pornography and ignores its use, by a lot of people, as a way to avoid dealing with sex issues in their marriage. It's not cheating, it's not adultery. It's a diversion. It is still potentially very dangerous because avoiding the issue is going to create routines that get you further and further away from resolution.


----------



## Blondilocks (Jul 4, 2013)

It is risky to follow the marriage advice of a person who admits their marriage is in high conflict for 5% to 10% of the time. Unless, one enjoys the drama. Better to take such advice with a grain of salt.


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

minimalME said:


> Although I completely agree with you that pornography is a way to avoid dealing with marital problems, I disagree that it's simply a diversion.
> 
> I mean serious? Watching others have sex is just an innocent pastime? An innocuous form of entertainment? No, it's not. _Especially_ when you're married and neglecting your spouse.
> 
> ...


If you will note, the other spouse is the one neglecting the one turning to masterbation. You can't accuse them of neglect when it's the other refusing sex.

As to cheating, it is only cheating if one of the couple feels that way. I have had plenty of relationships outside the marriage and it's not cheating because the spouses know and approve. Now if I went behind their back or against their wishes, it would be cheating.

Masterbation will never be adultery, regardless of whether fap material is used or not. To be adultery, the married person must engage in sex with another person other than their spouse(s). There is no one else in masterbation.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Livvie said:


> In another thread a poster talked about the MEM Clause and I didn't want to clog his thread asking about it there.
> 
> The MEM Clause (named after a poster here, MEM, who discussed this situation and his response to it) is when your spouse no longer is interested in having a sex life with you, lets you know that, and you respond by stating that you know you love each other and your life together, you want to remain married, but are NOT going to live a sexless life, so you will outsource just the sex part.
> 
> ...


I do not believe it would be viable for many, if not most, and that includes me.

I won't have sex outside of marriage for one but I have always been monogamous as well and I will not be in a romantic, love, marriage relationship with one woman while bedding others.

Mrs. Conan and I had a speed bump in our marriage maybe 10-12 years ago that could come under this topic.

Our frequency had died down and our overall intimacy was going down as well.

She started being more controlling about our frequency and intimacy and it wasn't in a good way. She was reducing it, not choosing when she wanted it.

I observed for a couple months or so and finally had a discussion with her.

I had just come home from a two or three day work related trip and had been romancing her with love and sexy talk which definitely indicated my intent of us having sex, among other wonderful things, together since we had been apart for a while.

She played back but started dimming the love and passion talk on my way home.

I got in the house, got a very mediocre kiss and told I wasn't getting any just then and maybe I would later, maybe not either. She had dinner ready and the house was in order as usual and the kids were gone.


She had no appointments or visits with anyone else planned so she wasn't planning anything outside of us and our time together for the rest of the day and the next.

I had definitely had enough and left her downstairs so I could change into comfortable shorts and a workout shirt because I was going to hit the gym to work off my frustrations after I set her straight.

I came downstairs looking good, I dressed to flaunt my physique and had myself fixed up good with some cologne she likes.

I then told her to sit with me on the couch and have a talk with me.

I will summarize it. I told her I loved her and chose her to be my wife but I was a passionate man and part of choosing her was that I would only pour my physical passion into her. I said I would not be denied, that I was an alpha male (for lack of a better term) and I would be having sex and very often. I told her I would not have problems finding a willing partner who would love being on the receiving end of my passion but that I had no desire to pour that passion into anyone but her.

I did say with a tinge of sadness but absolute assuredness that my passion would not be denied for long and if she didn't want to be the one I poured it into, I would find another.

There were tears in her eyes as I finished and she didn't say a word. She just grabbed my hand and led me upstairs.

What followed was some of the most outstanding sex in our history and both of us were reduced to a satisfied mess afterwards.

She opened up later that a couple of women at our church had started talking to her and convincing her that I was too dominant and she needed to exert herself.

They had her convinced for a while that she was being walked on by me and taken advantage of. She was starting to believe that she was being controlled by me and kept down.

They were a couple of dried up, bitter women with whooped husbands that probably gave up trying to have regular relations with their dusty vajajays years hence.

She dumped them and we continued to do great in our marriage and never looked back.

I won't be denied but I won't use the MEM statement either.

If my wife doesn't desire me that way, I would hate it but leave to find someone who was hungry for some Conan cake.😉


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

Y'all of course get to think whatever you like.
But if you have a problem with the words I used, but see no issue with the words my spouse used, or MEM's spouse used, or any woman may use for that matter, then there's some hypocrisy there.
In BOTH cases, all the hyperbole did was expedite the outcome. In both cases what the women heard was, unilateral, cruel, and punitive. Yet, they did not see their declaration which prompted the response in the same light. In MEM's case he and his spouse subsequently talked it out. In my case, my spouse used the statement to justify the outcome she was already looking for ... running away from the marriage. 

To me, none of this is complex. Was my wife exaggerating or being hyperbolic in telling me she was no longer interested in sex or romance? Maybe. But as another poster indicated, if so, then why say it all?

Would I liked to have come away from that exchange and followed up with a reasonable discussion preserving the marriage and meeting both our needs? Yes.
Do I regret what I said and wish to take it back to preserve the peace, and acknowledge her declaration as acceptable? I do not.

The 'MEM clause' is a live hand grenade. Its use case is highly specific and certainly not intended to be a bluff. There are only 2 outcomes. You work it out and compromise, whether that involves a 3rd party or not is immaterial. Or the union dissolves.


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

Livvie said:


> How would that work IN REAL life? Doesn't finding a sex partner and then meeting your sex partner for sex take a lot of time or energy away from the marriage?


It can if you are active searching instead of being open to opportunities. But if the spouse is not putting in the time and energy to provide sex, that is now available for one to obtain it elsewhere.



> Doesn't it drive a huge wedge between you?


For the situation you described there is already a wedge. Whether swinging will make it better or worse will depend upon the couple. There is no one universal answer.



> What about diseases? I know the whole idea of outsourcing is because your spouse isn't having sex with you, byt if you kiss your spouse, share a bathroom and a bed with them, they are exposed to whatever you pick up from your sex partner.


A risk of course, but if the spouse is not providing sex, a minimum one. Ideally one gets tested and has the new partner get tested prior to the physical activities. If you are remaining exclusive to each other and the spouse (or spouses if both are swinging) then there is no risk, after testing.



> What about being accidentally seen with the sex partner by friends, family, people from work?


That really depends on how much you care about what those outside the relationships think. You can always limit your activities to each other's home



> I guess I'm asking if anyone believes this clause in action is really a viable solution. Isn't it pretty much going to ruin the marriage just as much as being sexless would?


I can be, or it can ruin the marriage. But if the marriage is already going down due sexlessness, exactly how much worse is it going to get trying this route, assuming being open about it?

The only thing I will add here, is the swinging only is viable if sex, or lack thereof, is the only issue. If there are other issues, swinging won't solve them.



Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

maquiscat said:


> If you will note, the other spouse is the one neglecting the one turning to masterbation. You can't accuse them of neglect when it's the other refusing sex.
> 
> As to cheating, it is only cheating if one of the couple feels that way. I have had plenty of relationships outside the marriage and it's not cheating because the spouses know and approve. Now if I went behind their back or against their wishes, it would be cheating.
> 
> ...


Its not masturbation that is cheating, its the porn. The word used in the Bible to describe sexual immorality is 'pornea' which is where the word porn comes from.
If I was married to someone who declared that they no longer wanted sex, I would want to explore that and find out why. If we were still quite young and sex was important to me then I guess I would need to decide my next step. Adultery for me isnt an option, so it would be stay and accept it or leave.


----------



## Livvie (Jan 20, 2014)

Deejo said:


> Y'all of course get to think whatever you like.
> But if you have a problem with the words I used, but see no issue with the words my spouse used, or MEM's spouse used, or any woman may use for that matter, then there's some hypocrisy there.
> In BOTH cases, all the hyperbole did was expedite the outcome. In both cases what the women heard was, unilateral, cruel, and punitive. Yet, they did not see their declaration which prompted the response in the same light. In MEM's case he and his spouse subsequently talked it out. In my case, my spouse used the statement to justify the outcome she was already looking for ... running away from the marriage.
> 
> ...


I get it now, the use of it (the clause). Sometimes I take things _very literally_ and was wanting to discuss how it would actually work in real life. Now I see that users of the clause aren't needing to be bogged down thinking about the real logistics of outsourcing. Because that isn't the point. I get it.

I'd be interested to know the mindset of the women who state to their husbands they aren't interested in sex going forward. What do they really expect is going to happen? Why aren't they incredibly nervous about losing the marriage?


----------



## minimalME (Jan 3, 2012)

In my personal situation, I was the one being neglected with a spouse who was at the office getting off to porn and putting absolutely zero effort into our intimate relationship. 



maquiscat said:


> If you will note, the other spouse is the one neglecting the one turning to masterbation. You can't accuse them of neglect when it's the other refusing sex.


I disagree. I believe in moral absolutes - I'm not in the 'everything is permissible for consenting adults' camp.



> As to cheating, it is only cheating if one of the couple feels that way.


I didn't say that masterbation was adultery. 



> Masterbation will never be adultery, regardless of whether fap material is used or not. To be adultery, the married person must engage in sex with another person other than their spouse(s). There is no one else in masterbation.


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

Really appreciate you sharing this Conan.
And yes, as a matter of fact my wife did go out of her way to point out that none of her friends were having sex with their husbands, or did so begrudgingly when they did.

I even had a buddy of mine who has been married for 30 years say to me, "They change man, that's just the way it is. Things get to where sex isn't all that important. You'll eventually get to that point too."
To which my reply was, "Nope."



ConanHub said:


> I do not believe it would be viable for many, if not most, and that includes me.
> 
> I won't have sex outside of marriage for one but I have always been monogamous as well and I will not be in a romantic, love, marriage relationship with one woman while bedding others.
> 
> ...


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Deejo said:


> Really appreciate you sharing this Conan.
> And yes, as a matter of fact my wife did go out of her way to point out that none of her friends were having sex with their husbands, or did so begrudgingly when they did.
> 
> I even had a buddy of mine who has been married for 30 years say to me, "They change man, that's just the way it is. Things get to where sex isn't all that important. You'll eventually get to that point too."
> To which my reply was, "Nope."


Same sentiments here. 29 years together. I'm on the cusp of 50, she is 60 and the desire is still there.

We've slowed a bit but we aren't stopping.😉

I hate the excuse that her friends aren't having sex.

They aren't married to you either. Terrible argument.


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

Diana7 said:


> Its not masturbation that is cheating, its the porn. The word Jesus uses to describe sexual immorality is 'pornea' which is where the word porn comes from.


You just conflated two different points I made.

What is or isn't cheating is only between the couple (or more if poly). The same act that would be considered cheating between you and your spouse, might not be considered cheating between me and mine.

As far as adultery, one must be married AND having sex with someone not their spouse in order to commit adultery. I am aware of the one line by Jesus, but I am sure there is a translation error somewhere along the line since two single people cannot commit adultery with each other. Fornication to be sure, but not adultery. 

So I never claimed that masturbation was not cheating. That would be between the people involved. I only claimed that masterbation, with or without porn, was not adultery.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

minimalME said:


> In my personal situation, I was the one being neglected with a spouse who was at the office getting off to porn and putting absolutely zero effort into our intimate relationship.


Then I missed where you shifted focus. I thought you were addressing the OP situation of the one making the ultimatum because their spouse would not provide sex.



> I disagree. I believe in moral absolutes - I'm not in the 'everything is permissible for consenting adults' camp.


You can be in that camp all you want, but you still don't get to decide what is or is not cheating for me and mine, anymore so than we get to make those decisions for you and yours.



> I didn't say that masterbation was adultery.


That impression was left with the use of porn for masterbation. 

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk


----------



## DownByTheRiver (Jul 2, 2020)

The MEM clause may work for some men, but women want an emotional attachment, so it's not going to work for them. And the men, clause or no clause, will leave the wife if they find even a temporary replacement.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

Livvie said:


> I'd be interested to know the mindset of the women who state to their husbands they aren't interested in sex going forward. What do they really expect is going to happen? Why aren't they incredibly nervous about losing the marriage?


The response to your questions depends on the woman's personality. I can only use me as an example but I am very open about expectations, both what is expected of me and what I expect of others. I'm going to exit the relationship if either he isn't meeting my expectations or I'm incapable of meeting his. 

For example, if someone said to me "I don't find overweight women attractive" then I'd probably start planning my exit as soon as I saw the pounds packing on and the loss of interest in me. Why? Because I know my genetics and the older I get, the further from "fit" I'll get. It's not to say it's impossible but the level of effort I personally would need to put in is more than I'm willing to expend. 

I think it's the same with sex. People with my personality may decide that what is being expected of them is more than they are willing or capable of giving so they up and leave the relationship. 

It's cold and seems heartless but in my case, having experienced a divorce and being of a certain age, it's sometimes easier and makes more sense to scrap the relationship and start over with someone new.


----------



## minimalME (Jan 3, 2012)

This is a forum where we share our opinions and ideas, and we often disagree with one another.

On this thread (as with many others), I disagree with you.

It goes without saying that I'm free to believe what I want (and voice those beliefs and stand up for those beliefs), but thanks for reminding me? 😂



maquiscat said:


> You can be in that camp all you want, but you still don't get to decide what is or is not cheating for me and mine, anymore so than we get to make those decisions for you and yours.


----------



## Rob_1 (Sep 8, 2017)

Beliefs are just that..beliefs. they are not absolute true.

I can believe that the sky is purple, and hey, for me is purple, but we all know that it isn't. 
Same with anything, in this case "masturbation". In humans from a simple physiological perspective is nothing more than a natural stress relief. But, culturally, in some segments of the human populations, specially those of the archetypical judeo-Christian persuasion, it has become attached to sexual mores, and individuals depending how strict their moral suppression has been in their particular growing up environment reflect that restriction to themselves, and want to attache it to everyone else. 

But in reality is not true. Masturbation is not more cheating than the sky is purple. Now, if masturbation takes away the actual sex with a partner, then yes, you are cheating your partner, and that partner has the right to react as he/she sees right, period.


----------



## Hiner112 (Nov 17, 2019)

The sex talk before marriage, the MEM clause, and the masturbation thread are all pretty closely related. Before marriage, and not long after my ex and I moved in together, we had some discussions about attitudes and expectations. A couple things came out of it:

I was probably going to have an orgasm every night. I would like her to share an experience or act with me but I could satisfy some of my higher drive myself if she wasn't up to it.
I would not turn her down and if my performance became an issue my masturbation would stop (unless I actually needed to take more of an edge off).
If she lost all interest in sex, I'd probably seek it elsewhere. 
I couldn't wrap my head around losing all interest myself but I gave her the same permission.
So I guess in a roundabout way the "MEM clause" or whatever was an understood part of our relationship from the beginning. This was roughly two and a half years before we got married so it is an entirely different context than marital ultimatums though.


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

DownByTheRiver said:


> The MEM clause may work for some men, but women want an emotional attachment, so it's not going to work for them. And the men, clause or no clause, will leave the wife if they find even a temporary replacement.


Which is the ironic part of the entire equation. My wife insisting it isn't me she doesn't want to have sex with, she just doesn't want to have sex. Yet ... presuming she doesn't intend to remain single for the remainder of her life; the time is going to come, where she is going to meet someone, and of course WILL want to have sex with them. Post-menopause or no. She's attractive and absolutely no one thinks she is as old as she is. She will remain single for exactly as long as she chooses to be. For that matter, so will I.

But as far as men leaving their spouse if they find a replacement; I'm not so sure about that. There have been any number of examples, and a very recent one that I recall, where a woman's husband had been having an affair with his also married partner, for over 10 years. Generally I believe if people perceive they can have their cake, and eat it too ... they will. And that axiom can be applied either in the case of an affair, or subjecting a spouse to a sexless marriage and expecting them to accept their celibacy.


----------



## Casual Observer (Sep 13, 2012)

minimalME said:


> Although I completely agree with you that pornography is a way to avoid dealing with marital problems, I disagree that it's simply a diversion.
> 
> I mean serious? Watching others have sex is just an innocent pastime? An innocuous form of entertainment? No, it's not. _Especially_ when you're married and neglecting your spouse.
> 
> ...


It seems that your definition of pornography is based entirely upon content; otherwise I don't think you'd hold that position. 

So when my wife and I were viewing a well-known hub, shall we say, of pornography, to try and find different ways of doing things, where does that fit? These were actually instructional videos using real live people instead of stick figures showing limbs-only. If I were to be looking at Christian websites (which I have done) showing different positions to try, sometimes using shall we say "enhanced" stick figures, is that porn? If I look at a more descriptive pictorial, say a book, dedicated to enjoying sex more, is that porn? Does it matter if it's both my wife and I?

This is beginning to feel like a threadjack, but I'm not sure. It may simply be an ever-widening perspective.


----------



## Casual Observer (Sep 13, 2012)

Deejo said:


> Really appreciate you sharing this Conan.
> And yes, as a matter of fact my wife did go out of her way to point out that none of her friends were having sex with their husbands, or did so begrudgingly when they did.
> 
> I even had a buddy of mine who has been married for 30 years say to me, "They change man, that's just the way it is. Things get to where sex isn't all that important. You'll eventually get to that point too."
> To which my reply was, "Nope."


Word man, word. My wife not long after marriage got into the whole thing of how "most" women didn't enjoy sex and "most" women she knew had sex very infrequently. Why the hell I didn't put my foot down, hard, then, remains a mystery to me. All the clues were there. But at that point I still felt very guilty for having taken her virginity prior to marriage (which turned out not to have been the case) and thought maybe she'd come around. 

And for decades, even VERY recently, actually probably at this moment, she is thinking just like your friend. That sex will become less important to me, that I'll eventually get to that point.

My reply to that is a bit more nuanced than "nope" though. My reply is that, that point is not something she should look forward to, because it will have meant a death to something that's very much a part of my being. It's part of who and what I am.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Casual Observer said:


> It seems that your definition of pornography is based entirely upon content; otherwise I don't think you'd hold that position.
> 
> So when my wife and I were viewing a well-known hub, shall we say, of pornography, to try and find different ways of doing things, where does that fit? These were actually instructional videos using real live people instead of stick figures showing limbs-only. If I were to be looking at Christian websites (which I have done) showing different positions to try, sometimes using shall we say "enhanced" stick figures, is that porn? If I look at a more descriptive pictorial, say a book, dedicated to enjoying sex more, is that porn? Does it matter if it's both my wife and I?
> 
> This is beginning to feel like a threadjack, but I'm not sure. It may simply be an ever-widening perspective.


It's a TJ but worth exploring on another thread for sure.


----------



## Livvie (Jan 20, 2014)

Casual Observer said:


> It seems that your definition of pornography is based entirely upon content; otherwise I don't think you'd hold that position.
> 
> So when my wife and I were viewing a well-known hub, shall we say, of pornography, to try and find different ways of doing things, where does that fit? These were actually instructional videos using real live people instead of stick figures showing limbs-only. If I were to be looking at Christian websites (which I have done) showing different positions to try, sometimes using shall we say "enhanced" stick figures, is that porn? If I look at a more descriptive pictorial, say a book, dedicated to enjoying sex more, is that porn? Does it matter if it's both my wife and I?
> 
> This is beginning to feel like a threadjack, but I'm not sure. It may simply be an ever-widening perspective.


Porn use is definitely another way of "outsourcing". 

I'd think if you and your wife are looking at Christian websites of things to try together that even though it's live action people it's not porn in the traditional way it's defined.


----------



## jlg07 (Feb 24, 2017)

minimalME said:


> This is a forum where we share our opinons and ideas, and we often disagree with one another.
> 
> On this thread (as with many others), I disagree with you.
> 
> It goes without saying that I'm free to believe what I want (and voice those beliefs and stand up for those beliefs), but thanks for reminding me? 😂


Hey @minimalME , just for clarification I have a question.

SHE is the one neglecting HIM in the sexual arena.
If HE were to masturbate, it is OK.
If HE were to masturbate using PORN, that is NOT OK, even if it is NOT him neglecting his wife?
SO, the choice, by your lights, are that he either stays celibate, or leaves the marriage?

No argument with you at all, just wanted to make sure I understood your position here


----------



## farsidejunky (Mar 19, 2014)

Livvie said:


> Gotcha. It's not meant to work, then, really.
> 
> So why not just say, I can't live a sexless life, either we fix it or we need to divorce? Why speak in hyperbole?


It is meant to work, just not in the way you are thinking. It shows you something crucial:

If (A), they are cool with the outsourcing, then the relationship is finished. 

If (B), they lose their ****, you actually have something to work with. 

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## farsidejunky (Mar 19, 2014)

Livvie said:


> I get it now, the use of it (the clause). Sometimes I take things _very literally_ and was wanting to discuss how it would actually work in real life. Now I see that users of the clause aren't needing to be bogged down thinking about the real logistics of outsourcing. Because that isn't the point. I get it.
> 
> I'd be interested to know the mindset of the women who state to their husbands they aren't interested in sex going forward. What do they really expect is going to happen? Why aren't they incredibly nervous about losing the marriage?


Anyone entitled enough to make such a statement is likely to expect no action beyond acquiescence, or they would not make such a statement. Unless, of course, they don't care if the relationship ends.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

Deejo said:


> She's attractive and absolutely no one thinks she is as old as she is. *She will remain single for exactly as long as she chooses to be.* For that matter, so will I.


@Livvie deejo's bolded statement above is another reason why some women are able to do what you asked in your OP without worry or backwards glance. They have the resources (looks, money, power) to attract others at will. Why waste time and energy fixing something that could be "easily" replaced? It's a version of the grass is greener syndrome.


----------



## Casual Observer (Sep 13, 2012)

Lila said:


> @Livvie deejo's bolded statement above is another reason why some women are able to do what you asked in your OP without worry or backwards glance. They have the resources (looks, money, power) to attract others at will. Why waste time and energy fixing something that could be "easily" replaced? It's a version of the grass is greener syndrome.


But in some cases I believe it's a case of denial that it (their partner not backing down and actually leaving) could happen. And if it does happen, it's an eventuality so absurd to their logic that it's not processed with any remorse or sadness. Resources may not be relevant at all. Grass is greener not relevant either. I think it especially likely this could be the case for someone like deejo's wife, for whom it appears this may be a patterned behavior, not situational.



farsidejunky said:


> Anyone entitled enough to make such a statement is likely to expect no action beyond acquiescence, or they would not make such a statement. Unless, of course, they don't care if the relationship ends. Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


What they care about does not include the type of empathy required to understand what the other person sees or feels. They can't relate to that, so interaction even on a transactional level doesn't work for them.


----------



## minimalME (Jan 3, 2012)

I'm genuinely stumped by a couple of you. 😳

I've gone back and read Livvie's first post and all my replies, and I don't know where you come up with these responses? Are you referring to a different thread? Cause there is no he and she in Livvie's post - it's about the MEM clause and how it would be lived out if it were applied in a real way. Correct?

Am I missing something that everyone else sees?

And my response was that it would be lived out the way it's always been lived out.

Except in the past, I doubt that a spouse was offered the MEM clause. People were much more accepting of their circumstances. They didn't divorce, and they may or may not have gone without.

My point about pornography (in general - regardless of who's being neglected and who's doing the neglecting) is that it's being used as a modern day substitute for finding sex elsewhere.

In the past, a person would've been used. A mistress, a prostitute, the secretary - whoever.

Whether it's adultery with an actual partner, or with images/video of others through pornography (which is more easily hidden), to me,_ the intentions_ are the same.

All this you've written below makes my wee head numb. 🥺



jlg07 said:


> Hey @minimalME , just for clarification I have a question.
> 
> SHE is the one neglecting HIM in the sexual arena.
> If HE were to masturbate, it is OK.
> ...


----------



## Livvie (Jan 20, 2014)

minimalME said:


> I'm genuinely stumped by a couple of you. 😳
> 
> I've gone back and read Livvie's first post and all my replies, and I don't know where you come up with these responses? Are you referring to a different thread? Cause there is no he and she in Livvie's post - it's about the MEM clause and how it would be lived out if it were applied in a real way. Correct?
> 
> ...


I am unsure about some of the responses, too. I have a couple of people on ignore and I'm wondering if that's the issue I am having 😮 because I think I've not seen a couple of replies.

I agree with you re porn being a modern day way of finding sex elsewhere. Sometimes it's finding the elsewhere because your spouse won't have sex with you, sometimes it's an easy, lazy substitute because you don't want to work on your relationship (like an---- eh I'll just whack off to porn right here on my computer/phone it's so much easier than dealing with an actual person). My ex was the second type. He even ADMITTED it when we were getting divorced, that porn allowed him to not really have to work on any issue with me, and that without it he would have tried harder. WTF. You can bet my tolerance for porn usage in any future relationship I'm in is close to nil after living that experience (provided I'm an active, giving, frequent sex partner to my partner and not a sexless refuser,).


----------



## Talker67 (Apr 7, 2016)

in theory, this MEM clause makes perfect sense for the spouse who is not getting laid.

i think in many cases, however, when you do find someone for some extracurricular fun....after a few sessions you start falling in love. a few more sessions and you think this new person is SOOOO much better than your wife, who is denying you. then you start thinking what life would be with this new lover, instead of your tired old wife. And POOOF! Just like that you are getting divorced.

and then 12 months later, you are calling your spouse back, hoping they will take you back after you found out your new lover was not all they were cracked up to be. this actually happened to a friend of mine.

it is far better, and much less painful, for the LD spouse to try as hard as they can to still give their spouse some sex!!!


----------



## jlg07 (Feb 24, 2017)

minimalME said:


> I'm genuinely stumped by a couple of you. 😳
> 
> I've gone back and read Livvie's first post and all my replies, and I don't know where you come up with these responses? Are you referring to a different thread? Cause there is no he and she in Livvie's post - it's about the MEM clause and how it would be lived out if it were applied in a real way. Correct?
> 
> ...


Sorry, I should have been more clear -- yes I was referring to the ORIGINAL post that cause THIS thread offshoot in which SHE told him that she would not have sex anymore with him. My apologies.


----------



## Livvie (Jan 20, 2014)

Talker67 said:


> in theory, this MEM clause makes perfect sense for the spouse who is not getting laid.
> 
> i think in many cases, however, when you do find someone for some extracurricular fun....after a few sessions you start falling in love. a few more sessions and you think this new person is SOOOO much better than your wife, who is denying you. then you start thinking what life would be with this new lover, instead of your tired old wife. And POOOF! Just like that you are getting divorced.
> 
> ...


I have to wonder about your friend's emotional health and maturity. It didn't work out with his new partner post divorce, so as a divorced man he can't A just be single for awhile or B try to find a new partner, he C wants to get back together and into the sexless relationship he divorced himself out of? 

How does that make sense?


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

Well, as the OP, let me know if there is anything I can clarify. I'm pretty open.

From my simple perspective, if in fact one had a spouse who agreed to the terms of the clause? It simply nets out to an affair ... but it's not an affair, because it isn't a secret. There is no deception. And the fact that the sexual relationship remains steadfastly secondary to the marriage.

I'm not advocating it. I'm not saying it would, could, or should work. Fact remains that despite the overwhelming input here on the boards (including mine) that including others in your marriage is a universally bad idea, there are posters here who do just that, and their marriages have lasted a helluva lot longer than mine.

In reality it is part of what MEM would call the 'precipice dance', or what I call 'throwing the grenade in the room'. Your partner has just laid out to you what they believe are their open and honest feelings about what they want or expect from the relationship going forward that works best for them. I'd wager that most of the time when the statement is being made it is not intended to be either hurtful or detrimental. One partner wants to remove sexual intimacy and/or romance and have more of a 'Life Buddy' relationship. Sounds reasonable to them and they expect their partner will comply, because ya'know ... love.

Boom ... every sexless marriage post here, ever.

Or ... the partner who is being offered an ongoing partnership of marriage induced celibacy, instead makes it clear that they completely understand, and will respect their partners wish, with the understanding that their partner recognizes they have no intention of becoming celibate, as sex, particularly with them, is something they still very much desire, but will instead meet that need elsewhere ... be it via consumption of pornography, or pursuing a sexual relationship with another party in similar or understanding circumstances.

At which point the partner who thought declaring their lack of desire for sex was reasonable ... very quickly loses all reason.

I'll tell you my reasoning and understanding for saying what I said. 

I had no expectation that such a scenario would 'work out', or be successful. But it wasn't a bluff either. Did I know that she would react substantially different to my words than I did to hers? You bet I did.
Did my declaration emotionally wound her to the point of wanting out of the marriage? Maybe. But sadly, I'm pretty sure she was already there, regardless.

Unfortunately, I kept misinterpreting what she had been telling me for months as a result of the lockdown. She kept saying things like, " I need my own space to clear out my head." "This being together all the time, is just too much." When in fact what she was really saying was, " I need out." Generally, I just listened to her, given we were in the middle of lockdown ... not a lot of options to give her, her own space.

At the end of the day, regardless of what you call it, the MEM clause, Precipice Dance, throwing the grenade, confrontation escalation, radical honesty ... whatever ... it is more geared towards deriving an outcome than a working model. The outcome being both parties hunker down, own their sh!t and do the work, or acknowledge that they can't/won't, and you make choices from there.

It did its job. I have my outcome. I only wish she had expressed it, rather than ambushing me with it. But still, I find her telling me she's done either weeks before she's moving out, or 24 hours before she's moving out, preferable to her remaining in the relationship only to poison the well slowly over the course of several more years hoping that I would be the one to put the stake in the heart of the relationship, rather than her. We all know that story as well. And it usually ends far more badly than our case.


----------



## Hopeful Cynic (Apr 27, 2014)

Livvie said:


> I'd be interested to know the mindset of the women who state to their husbands they aren't interested in sex going forward. What do they really expect is going to happen? Why aren't they incredibly nervous about losing the marriage?


As far as I can tell, people who stop being interested in sex expect that the marriage vows of fidelity for better or worse will continue to apply in this 'worse' scenario, and their spouse will remain faithful and married, and adjust.

For example, my ex and I, during our marriage, both experienced medical issues that curtailed our sex life. Mine was temporary and I recovered, eager to resume a sex life, but by that time my ex's condition, which was chronic, had become more serious. I steeled myself to a future without sex, that I was willing to endure because I loved my spouse and had vowed to remain faithful. I assumed my ex had been and was returning the dedication.

That's what these women expect of their husbands.

In my case, however, I eventually discovered that my ex had secretly 'outsourced' during the worst of my illness, was still cheating, and was completely lying about the chronic medical issue.


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

Hopeful Cynic said:


> As far as I can tell, people who stop being interested in sex expect that the marriage vows of fidelity for better or worse will continue to apply in this 'worse' scenario, and their spouse will remain faithful and married, and adjust.
> 
> For example, my ex and I, during our marriage, both experienced medical issues that curtailed our sex life. Mine was temporary and I recovered, eager to resume a sex life, but by that time my ex's condition, which was chronic, had become more serious. I steeled myself to a future without sex, that I was willing to endure because I loved my spouse and had vowed to remain faithful. I assumed my ex had been and was returning the dedication.
> 
> ...


Man, so sorry to hear that. Just a relationship life lesson that I wish upon absolutely no one.


----------



## Mr. Nail (Apr 26, 2011)

Diana7 said:


> The word used in the Bible to describe sexual immorality is 'pornea' which is where the word porn comes from.


It's a Greek word that means prostitute. But a current definition will lead you closer to the truth.


----------



## Mr. Nail (Apr 26, 2011)

The thread is helpful, and I need to post something every day anyway. I'm in a situation similar to conan plus 15 years. Mrs Nail is slowly reducing the sexual frequency. and often when I com to a road block, err "**** block". I'll ask her which rule that violates. and this is where it differs. I get that deer in the headlights look and she always asks "what rules"? so I'll go over some of the obvious ones. Not on a n evening if she worked that day, not on an evening if she is going to work the next day. And so on. She is always surprised that these are rules and claims that there are no rules. There is one rule in favor of sex. If it's been over 12 days all the other rules (no rules) go out the window. 
About the porn thing. I'm pretty sure that we both agree that self service is ok any time you need one. I think she believes I do it a lot more than I do. There is no history of Not tonight Honey, I wanked last night. I've often wondered how that would go over.


----------



## Ragnar Ragnasson (Mar 4, 2018)

Livvie said:


> I get it now, the use of it (the clause). Sometimes I take things _very literally_ and was wanting to discuss how it would actually work in real life. Now I see that users of the clause aren't needing to be bogged down thinking about the real logistics of outsourcing. Because that isn't the point. I get it.
> 
> I'd be interested to know the mindset of the women who state to their husbands they aren't interested in sex going forward. What do they really expect is going to happen? Why aren't they incredibly nervous about losing the marriage?


I really would like to gain more of those women's mind set too. 

Being an ongoing learner of the human condition if you will, not just sexual relations.

What in the world does a wife think will happen if she says to her H she wants to stay M but have no more sex?

Certain Ws have agendas when dropping that bomb, then there are one's that truly think they're in the right, to be able to say lets stay M but no sex.

And everywhere in between I'm thinking.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

Ragnar Ragnasson said:


> What in the world does a wife think will happen if she says to her H she wants to stay M but have no more sex?
> 
> Certain Ws have agendas when dropping that bomb, then there are one's that truly think they're in the right, to be able to say lets stay M but no sex


I don't think there's a general answer to that. And I don't know what my _ex_ thought after I disabused her of this idea. But I think she was surprised by my response.


----------



## Diceplayer (Oct 12, 2019)

I just don't understand how any spouse can make a decision like that on their own when it affects both parties. If both spouses come to the agreement that they are done with sex then that's okay. But for one to do it on their own just isn't right.


----------



## Laurentium (May 21, 2017)

Diceplayer said:


> I just don't understand how any spouse can make a decision like that on their own when it affects both parties.


I agree. 
But is it a _decision_? I think for most people who say they don't want to have sex, it's because their body really doesn't want to - not because they've just _decided_ not to. 
So when I say I agree, I guess what I'm saying is the decision not to seek a medical evaluation and/or sex therapy to try to address it. Like "I don't feel responsive sexually, and, I'm OK with that and not going to talk to my doctor about it". That''s the decision I don't see how people feel entitled to just announce on their own. But these days it's all "my body my choice".


----------



## Mr. Nail (Apr 26, 2011)

You can force a person to give you their money.
You can force a person to give you their labor.
But when it comes to Sex any person has the right to decide to not share that.
But that decision is not devoid of consequence. The judge that will not force you to have sex, will gladly grant a divorce.


----------



## Impulse (Jun 10, 2020)

Livvie said:


> How would that work IN REAL life?


It wouldn’t.


----------



## Impulse (Jun 10, 2020)

farsidejunky said:


> It is meant to work, just not in the way you are thinking. It shows you something crucial:
> 
> If (A), they are cool with the outsourcing, then the relationship is finished.
> 
> ...


Or (C), they are cool with the outsourcing but lose their **** anyway

The whole premise is wrong. For most people in this situation, it is not about sex. It is about sex (or lack of it) with *their* partner. Threatening someone with ‘outsourcing’ will reflect very poorly on the person doing the threatening, no matter how it is put forward. Especially since ‘sex on the side’ is not even the goal.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Ragnar Ragnasson said:


> I really would like to gain more of those women's mind set too.
> 
> Being an ongoing learner of the human condition if you will, not just sexual relations.
> 
> ...


They either have been led to believe their husbands are doormats or they aren't under illusions but maybe are too afraid to ask for a divorce?


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

I think the far more common occurrence is just what I refer to as 'sexualsclerosis'. It's the diminishment of passion, spontaneity, openness, and simple exuberance about the relationship overall across the span of time. My buddy who counseled me 'that's just the way it is'. My STBX's friends making no bones about the fact they have zero interest in having sex with their husbands. And their husbands getting to the point where they don't even want to bother to try because they know how the advance will be received, and what the outcome will be.

EVERYBODY knows these people and these circumstances. It's common. Hell, I was prepared to compromise on sex once a week ... but even that was too much.

My stbx said what she said; and it sucked. I gave her my reply; and it sucked. But in her mind, what she was saying was reasonable, and what I said was so hurtful and so far out in left field that it simply hurtled her faster down the path she was already going down, primarily because she already knew that I had no intention of being in a sexless marriage. 

Do I think any man or woman if the script gets flipped, should pull this out as a response in an argument over sex? I do not. I didn't just blurt it out. Based upon the words she was using at the time, and the tone she was delivering them in, whereas I noted previously, I often simply sit and listen and take in what she has to say; I chose not to. Were she invested at all in wanting to find a compromise or mend fences, we would have had the blow-out, reconvened, and then calmly discussed a way forward. Instead she internalized everything, clammed up, and made the unilateral decision that she could no longer be a participant in the relationship ... a right which anyone can certainly reserve. But ... one would expect at least a token resistance or defense to try to salvage what they had built. Or make it very clear to their partner that is the case in a more constructive timeframe rather than over the phone, within 24 hours of bolting. I strongly believe that her head was already out of the relationship. The statement didn't make it happen. It just made it happen quicker.


----------



## Livvie (Jan 20, 2014)

ConanHub said:


> They either have been led to believe their husbands are doormats or they aren't under illusions but maybe are too afraid to ask for a divorce?


Well. Since countless men DO stay in sexless marriages, for decades, they are right in their assumption _sometimes_, but maybe it's like playing Russian Roulette (taking a chance with how he will react). But it's bold even if he chooses to stay in the marriage because how can things ever be the same once you have said to your husband you aren't going to be having sex with him anymore?


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Livvie said:


> Well. Since countless men DO stay in sexless marriages, for decades, they are right in their assumption _sometimes_, but maybe it's like playing Russian Roulette (taking a chance with how he will react). But it's bold even if he chooses to stay in the marriage because how can things ever be the same once you have said to your husband you aren't going to be having sex with him anymore?


Yup. I believe some men have behaved in a manner for so long that their wives rightly believe they will just take it.

I have to wonder about the respect level there.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Hmmm... might just have to steal "sexualsclerosis"! 😆


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

ConanHub said:


> Yup. I believe some men have behaved in a manner for so long that their wives rightly believe they will just take it.
> 
> I have to wonder about the respect level there.


Not talking about you here deejo.

Your relationship was way too short for what I'm talking about and I think your assessment of what happened with you is on target.


----------



## Casual Observer (Sep 13, 2012)

Livvie said:


> I get it now, the use of it (the clause). Sometimes I take things _very literally_ and was wanting to discuss how it would actually work in real life. Now I see that users of the clause aren't needing to be bogged down thinking about the real logistics of outsourcing. Because that isn't the point. I get it.
> 
> *I'd be interested to know the mindset of the women who state to their husbands they aren't interested in sex going forward. What do they really expect is going to happen? Why aren't they incredibly nervous about losing the marriage?*


There is no single mindset for that. That's one of the problems when talking about any of this stuff; we're looking for answers as if people are machines without unexpected outcomes. Worse, we sometimes believe the machine comes in a limited number of models. Thus there should be this "Aha!" moment when the "right" answer is found.

Sometimes the best we can do is search for the right questions, instead of looking for the answers. We may never find the answer, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to figure out the right questions. Unless, of course, it involves any type of suspicious behavior where the spouse could possible be cheating. TAM rules require that we automatically assume cheating is going on. It's the French system here; guilty until proven innocent, and the guillotine is dying to be used.

Yikes. Obviously I had something that needed to be said. Left out so far was the answer (OMG I said answer!!!!) to the bolded part. Because in my wife's case, I think there is an answer. I gave it elsewhere. She is so far removed from the issue, in her mind, that there's nothing about it she can relate to. The idea of me leaving because she has said some rather cold things about sex (if you car so much about sex, have an affair or find a hooker.... or... I've resented sex for 40 years... or... I would be fine if we had sex once or twice a month) doesn't register at all. There is no empathy, no attempt to figure out why she feels that way, or why I feel the way I do. 

We build up so much momentum over the years, in a very bad way. We just let things go that should have been strongly addressed early on. You figure you'll get used to things. And I think that's what the non-sexual spouse is counting on. Because they're find with it, so eventually you will too. And time... time is the ultimate thing on their side, because everyone will support the absurd notion that sexual desire declines with age, as if that's something you can count on if you're just willing to wait it out.

Yet, I still have hope. My wife is working on things. But accountability continues to be an issue, and this is where therapy often fails. You're told it will take time, and the person who lacks accountability, that very person who figured that time was on their side because eventually their partner would lose desire... they can pull the same crap in therapy, saying you're unrealistic to think this can be fixed in a reasonable period of time, basically weaponizing your patience.

So did my wife use a reverse MEM clause on me? Now I'm more confused than ever! @Deejo I'm not sure what you've started, but there's some sort of universal truth behind all this. After I just said there are no real answers.


----------



## farsidejunky (Mar 19, 2014)

Impulse said:


> Or (C), they are cool with the outsourcing but lose their **** anyway
> 
> The whole premise is wrong. For most people in this situation, it is not about sex. It is about sex (or lack of it) with *their* partner. Threatening someone with ‘outsourcing’ will reflect very poorly on the person doing the threatening, no matter how it is put forward. Especially since ‘sex on the side’ is not even the goal.


It will be reflected upon very poorly by whom?

You make it sound like there's some mysterious arbiter behind the scenes of a relationship.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## Emerging Buddhist (Apr 7, 2016)

Affaircare said:


> I don’t believe the intent of “the MEM clause” is an actual plan of action for how to move forward in the marriage. In other words, it’s not something to actually execute. It’s more like a statement in hyperbole to show/spotlight how impossible it is to just cut off sex and expect to continue as a married couple (assuming there’s just lack of desire...not a medical condition).
> 
> See how obvious it is that outsourcing sex WILL NOT WORK? That’s the point. Unilaterally ending sex will not work.


I have thought about the phrase "the MEM clause" over the last day and AC and I have discussed it several times more about the way it is used and less about a part of the relationship alone.

Choose your area, the statement is more about a leveraged point of no return, the way it is engaged, and the lack of compassion of its culmination in a relationship. Sex is often used as the fulcrum, but the essential breadcrumbs of distancing precede any loss of the intimate physical relationship.

It's not running away (divorce) per se, the running away comes as a placed coup de grâce. How it is in my thoughts are more a barrier of standards that is not fully thought out in it's inception, thus when the incoming response goes from 0-11 in a matter of statements it leaves the originator reacting as poorly as the exaggerated counter-statement.

Brinkmanship really... only one party is far more prepared and the mettle is never known until detonation as it can easily go far different than planned. It comes down to a realization that one side’s compassion and empathy in the desire to feel close has been either partially or full severed and the depth to see just how much damage is there elicits a need to know "where do we really stand"?

Fear can be as complicated as a series of staged distancing to build space or as quietly simple and unspoken planned events that would force more time together, thus a means of clarity "rising to the surface" that cannot be avoided.

Couples where both want to close the distance and are motivated by the strengths (love with honestly caring about the well-being of the other) will want to close the gaps... those that love the gaps on their terms will find other's terms intolerable from being anxiously attached and not want the efforts to to make things better be in the way of their next path.

We have to look at how we speak up for ourselves... there are time when it is fair to say "my place here deserves to be loved on healthy terms", if this is denied then it is fair to evaluate commitment... the "clause" without a doubt forces that evaluation.

If you have to convince someone your needs in the relationship have value, I suspect there is far more missing than the surface "clause" you are focusing on.


----------



## heartsbeating (May 2, 2011)

Emerging Buddhist said:


> Choose your area, the statement is more about a leveraged point of no return, the way it is engaged, and the lack of compassion of its culmination in a relationship. Sex is often used as the fulcrum, but the essential breadcrumbs of distancing precede any loss of the intimate physical relationship.


This is very eloquently put and in between life happenings, I too, have considered this.

Trying to consider a balanced perspective, I humbly offer that the spouse who raises that sexual intimacy is no longer important to them or wanted within a union whereby they know this is a priority for their partner, inadvertently backs the relationship into a corner - whether intentional or not. The 'clause' as a response further potentially backs the relationship into a corner and could be interpreted by the other that sex is not about emotional and physical connection with them; but rather about sex in general. I don't particularly have an opinion about that - just recognise it could comes across that way. And becomes a bit of a paradox in my mind (if paradox is the correct term to use here), in that they have asserted they don't want sex themselves, yet also don't want their spouse to have sex either; with or without them.

And is very different to a spouse raising that they aren't feeling it anymore but acknowledge it's important to the other, and therefore, asking how they could approach this together - if at all. Conversely, instead of the clause, the dialogue could be met with saying a relationship devoid of sex and intimacy isn't going to work for them; so how can that be approached together - if at all. Some might be rolling their eyes to this and the result may still mean dissolution of the marriage, but it could just be a more direct way without anyone feeling backed into a corner (yes, all in theory of course).

At the very least, here's hoping the thread might encourage MEM back to TAM.


----------



## heartsbeating (May 2, 2011)

Oops more thoughts... and intention is a big part of this. If the spouse already knows it will be a deal-breaker and comes from a place of disregard for the other, it's most certainly a push towards ending the relationship regardless.


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

jlg07 said:


> Sorry, I should have been more clear -- yes I was referring to the ORIGINAL post that cause THIS thread offshoot in which SHE told him that she would not have sex anymore with him. My apologies.


That thread probably should have been linked to as reference.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

Diceplayer said:


> I just don't understand how any spouse can make a decision like that on their own when it affects both parties. If both spouses come to the agreement that they are done with sex then that's okay. But for one to do it on their own just isn't right.


It's their body, so they do get to make that decision for whatever reasons. I think the real question is why do they think that decision would come with no other consequences? 

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk


----------



## Ragnar Ragnasson (Mar 4, 2018)

Bingo!


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

Impulse said:


> It wouldn’t.


And yet for some it does.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk


----------



## farsidejunky (Mar 19, 2014)

maquiscat said:


> It's their body, so they do get to make that decision for whatever reasons. I think the real question is why do they think that decision would come with no other consequences?
> 
> Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk


This is the crux of the argument. 

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

farsidejunky said:


> This is the crux of the argument.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


I agree that it is the crux of the _issue_, but it seems to me that some are making the crux of the _argument _that there is not supposed to be any bodily denial. That the denying spouse shouldn't even be able to deny sex.


----------



## Livvie (Jan 20, 2014)

Right!

So we pretty much have three major types of situations.

A. the spouse announcing that regularly occurring sex in the marriage is over (and they aren't interested in working on any compromise) knows that their partner will stay in the marriage anyway because partner will never have the gumption to leave, or B. they know it will be unacceptable to their partner and they say it anyway knowing the marriage is ultimately done, or C. they are playing Russian Roulette and it could go either A or B.


----------



## farsidejunky (Mar 19, 2014)

maquiscat said:


> I agree that it is the crux of the _issue_, but it seems to me that some are making the crux of the _argument _that there is not supposed to be any bodily denial. That the denying spouse shouldn't even be able to deny sex.


That is wrong as well. Someone is free to withhold to their hearts content. That said, their partner is ALSO free to make choices that will negatively impact them. 

It cuts both ways. 

Often times the "My Body, My Choice" statement is laid out with undertones of "And You Have To Accept It".

No...no I do not have to accept it.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

farsidejunky said:


> That is wrong as well. Someone is free to withhold to their hearts content. That said, their partner is ALSO free to make choices that will negatively impact them.
> 
> It cuts both ways.
> 
> ...


To a point I agree, although what is meant by "you have to accept it" can be important. If the one deciding declaring "my body, my choice" means accept it, in that "you can't leave or take other actions", they are indeed wrong. But one does have to accept that the other's body is off limits, if that is what they meant.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

farsidejunky said:


> That is wrong as well. Someone is free to withhold to their hearts content. That said, their partner is ALSO free to make choices that will negatively impact them.
> 
> It cuts both ways.
> 
> ...


Mrs. C and I actually have a significant say so over each other's bodies.

I wouldn't be married any other way 😉


----------



## Blondilocks (Jul 4, 2013)

I'm imagining how Dug would have handled that conversation. The following is jld's signature line:

_One of the deepest feminine pleasures is when a man stands full, present, and unreactive in the midst of his woman's emotional storms. When he stays present with her, and loves her through the layers of wildness and closure, then she feels his trustability, and she can relax. _-- David Deida, The Way of the Superior Man


----------



## Livvie (Jan 20, 2014)

Blondilocks said:


> I'm imagining how Dug would have handled that conversation. The following is jld's signature line:
> 
> _One of the deepest feminine pleasures is when a man stands full, present, and unreactive in the midst of his woman's emotional storms. When he stays present with her, and loves her through the layers of wildness and closure, then she feels his trustability, and she can relax. _-- David Deida, The Way of the Superior Man


How do you think he would have reacted? I'm curious!

The thing is, often the statement of future sexlessness isn't given during an emotional storm, but rather coldly and matter of factly (I'm not doing that anymore (sex)).


----------



## farsidejunky (Mar 19, 2014)

maquiscat said:


> To a point I agree, although what is meant by "you have to accept it" can be important. If the one deciding declaring "my body, my choice" means accept it, in that "you can't leave or take other actions", they are indeed wrong. But one does have to accept that the other's body is off limits, if that is what they meant.


You are absolutely correct. I should have been more specific in what I meant by accepting the situation.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

farsidejunky said:


> You are absolutely correct. I should have been more specific in what I meant by accepting the situation.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


It happens. I do it too. We get to typing and our minds are moving faster than our fingers and we can leave things out we thought of, but don't realize it never made it to the output module.


----------



## badsanta (Oct 13, 2014)

Livvie said:


> How would that work IN REAL life? Doesn't finding a sex partner and then meeting your sex partner for sex take a lot of time or energy away from the marriage? Doesn't it drive a huge wedge between you? What about diseases? I know the whole idea of outsourcing is because your spouse isn't having sex with you, byt if you kiss your spouse, share a bathroom and a bed with them, they are exposed to whatever you pick up from your sex partner. What about being accidentally seen with the sex partner by friends, family, people from work?


I think these days the public is perfectly OK with couples that move on sexually yet still maintain close friendships/family. 


__
http://instagr.am/p/B-py28VDrvV/


----------



## Impulse (Jun 10, 2020)

farsidejunky said:


> It will be reflected upon very poorly by whom?
> 
> You make it sound like there's some mysterious arbiter behind the scenes of a relationship.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


By the only party that matters in this case: the spouse. 

By doing this, you are ****ing up two things with one proposition: you not only lie to yourself but also to your spouse. (Ask yourself: will the ‘sex on the side’ actually replace the thing that you are looking to replace, in practice? If not, why bother even bringing it up as an option, if not to create a more adversarial situation than necessary).

By lying, you also mainly hurt yourself by giving them ammunition to later accuse you of being shallow of just wanting sex, for the sake of sex. (Which is not even what most husbands really want).

The only cases where I know it has worked (not just on this thread but it also worked for me), is simply having an honest conversation about it. Your clue will be of what to do next is whether they elect to listen or not.

Maybe I am completely wrong about this but sometimes I think men can be their own worst enemies..for no apparent reason.


----------



## Blondilocks (Jul 4, 2013)

Livvie said:


> How do you think he would have reacted? I'm curious!
> 
> The thing is, often the statement of future sexlessness isn't given during an emotional storm, but rather coldly and matter of factly (I'm not doing that anymore (sex)).


I think Dug would have listened to jld, taken her in his arms and let her cry on his shoulder and then dropped the subject for a day or so in order for them to both process her meltdown. By this time, jld would be wanting to clear the air and bring up the subject and Dug would have very calmly told her that that is not how this would be working out. Dug would not have taken on her emotions although he would have stood by her while she came to grips with them. 

Of course, I could be all wet.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Blondilocks said:


> I think Dug would have listened to jld, taken her in his arms and let her cry on his shoulder and then dropped the subject for a day or so in order for them to both process her meltdown. By this time, jld would be wanting to clear the air and bring up the subject and Dug would have very calmly told her that that is not how this would be working out. Dug would not have taken on her emotions although he would have stood by her while she came to grips with them.
> 
> Of course, I could be all wet.


I think something fairly similar would have occurred.

It was sometimes very hard to understand her but I think it was mostly in modes of communication.

I sometimes vehemently disagreed with her but we might see a little more eye to eye than we thought.


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

Blondilocks said:


> I think Dug would have listened to jld, taken her in his arms and let her cry on his shoulder and then dropped the subject for a day or so in order for them to both process her meltdown. By this time, jld would be wanting to clear the air and bring up the subject and Dug would have very calmly told her that that is not how this would be working out. Dug would not have taken on her emotions although he would have stood by her while she came to grips with them.
> 
> Of course, I could be all wet.


While I appreciate the thought experiment, AND I read Deida's book. For all of the time we hear 'Not All Women Are Like That' ... I agree and disagree. If anyone wants to concede that they do not approach interactions with their partner with forethought, or for lack of a better word, 'strategy', then no ... you should never be surprised that you reap what you sow.

And I know how vague, or inaccurate emotions can come across in these posts, so I'll clearly state I appreciate you bringing up this point @Blondilocks. I didn't throw the grenade because I was angry, or hurt, or upset. I will reiterate. I was completely even keel the entire time, and insisted that I loved her and our marriage. Both true. jld and my wife are about as polar opposite as you can get. Given the nature of their relationship, I can assure you, Dug NEVER would have gone after someone like my wife. Can you imagine jld telling Dug she's going to front a rock band playing bars on the weekends and get home around 3 am? The whole notion of 'standing fast like a rock in the face of the emotional storm of your partner', is fantastic advice. Again, I can only cite the words of my wife; "You are the first man that whenever I've confronted them about something, don't get defensive and try to turn it around on me." And that is my default setting, 95% of the time. The other 5%? I call you out on your emotional hyperbole ... and I can assure you she NEVER liked it at the time. But my goal was never to manage HER response, it was to address the issue as I saw fit.

She and I talked yesterday. All civil. I asked her the question I already knew the answer to, after she mentioned the arguments and her belief that I was manipulating/threatening her. I said, "Take the arguments out of the equation, is the outcome we have now any different based on where you were at, but weren't sharing with me?" Her response was, "Probably not." So ... being the rock wasn't going to weather the storm. It just meant the storm would have blown past and made landfall later.

She's a runner. I should have known this based on her history, but ya'know ... love, and as I said, a combination of confidence/arrogance on my part. A trait that she also cited as something that initially she found very attractive in me. 

She outright stated that she couldn't cope with the sheltering in place, knowing that was potentially NEVER going to change; and being completely unable to have and manage, her words ... "my own space." She indicated she is very happy with her own place. She doesn't like that she hurt me, hurt our kids, but she feels she has what she needs, an orbit of dealing and coping that involves 2, rather than 5. Again, no surprise on my part. I knew she would likely be calmer and be able to cope far better. Which is why, I'm not angry or upset with her, aside from how she chose her exit.

This is the way it was going to go down ... regardless of whether I backed off completely, or challenged her at every turn. There is another supremely fundamental caveat that we point out here all of the time, but does tend to get lost or ignored in the fog of a failed relationship; I'm not responsible for how she feels, or the choices she makes. I can only conduct myself in a manner that I am satisfied with in terms of conduct within a LTR.

Several other men here have outlined how they handled their own 'grenade' moment. Conan basically utilized the same fundamental concept. 'I want you. I'm not prepared to be celibate. If I can't have you, I'll find someone else.' I'm paraphrasing of course, and one could certainly argue that he used honey and I used vinegar ... but the message was the same. And I can tell you, insert my wife into that same circumstance with the choice of language, and her response would have been, "Well maybe you should be with someone better suited to meeting your needs."

I mean, at the end of the day, I don't see these kinds of exchanges as black or white. Say the right thing and win a prize. Say the wrong thing and everything goes to hell in a handbasket.

So, I agree with the concept you put forth. But again, it is circumstantial, and strategic. After all for all the times we may be praised for being the rock, the flipside is that we 'aren't emotionally available.'

I still find the whole thing to be an elegant dance. I deeply appreciate just how right, many here have gotten it. But, based on my outcomes, I by no means think I'm a bad dancer. Just need that parnter who wants to keep on dancin' even if we lose step.


----------



## Divinely Favored (Apr 1, 2014)

Diana7 said:


> It is a form of cheating.


To look on another(not your spouse) and lust after them, you have already committed adultry in your heart.


----------



## Divinely Favored (Apr 1, 2014)

Casual Observer said:


> It seems that your definition of pornography is based entirely upon content; otherwise I don't think you'd hold that position.
> 
> So when my wife and I were viewing a well-known hub, shall we say, of pornography, to try and find different ways of doing things, where does that fit? These were actually instructional videos using real live people instead of stick figures showing limbs-only. If I were to be looking at Christian websites (which I have done) showing different positions to try, sometimes using shall we say "enhanced" stick figures, is that porn? If I look at a more descriptive pictorial, say a book, dedicated to enjoying sex more, is that porn? Does it matter if it's both my wife and I?
> 
> This is beginning to feel like a threadjack, but I'm not sure. It may simply be an ever-widening perspective.


I think key is to lust after. If you are viewing porn and fantasizing about the woman in the video then Biblically you have comitted adultry.


----------



## Divinely Favored (Apr 1, 2014)

maquiscat said:


> It's their body, so they do get to make that decision for whatever reasons. I think the real question is why do they think that decision would come with no other consequences?
> 
> Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk


I
Bible says your bodies belong to each other, and not to deny each other but for a time agreed upon for fasting and prayer.

I sometimes think about when women say about their husbands, "He dont own me!" I want to say, I thought yall were married? If you are, according to the Bible, he owns you and you own him.


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

Divinely Favored said:


> I
> Bible says your bodies belong to each other, and not to deny each other but for a time agreed upon for fasting and prayer.
> 
> I sometimes think about when women say about their husbands, "He dont own me!" I want to say, I thought yall were married? If you are, according to the Bible, he owns you and you own him.


That's all well and good for those who follow that interpretation of the Bible assuming they follow the Bible at all.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk


----------



## Blondilocks (Jul 4, 2013)

Deejo said:


> She and I talked yesterday. All civil. I asked her the question I already knew the answer to, after she mentioned the arguments and her belief that I was manipulating/threatening her. I said, "Take the arguments out of the equation, is the outcome we have now any different based on where you were at, but weren't sharing with me?" *Her response was, "Probably not.*" So ... being the rock wasn't going to weather the storm. It just meant the storm would have blown past and made landfall later.


Not trying to argue with you as you know your wife. I can't help but think that the 'grenade' pretty much assured the outcome. Of course, I can understand why you wouldn't be up for trying and trying and...like you suffered during your first divorce.

Hopefully, discourse will remain civil and you both wind up with as few scars as possible.


----------



## Atholk (Jul 25, 2009)

Livvie said:


> I guess I'm asking if anyone believes this clause in action is really a viable solution. Isn't it pretty much going to ruin the marriage just as much as being sexless would?


The point of doing this is to make it clear, that by ending the sex in the marriage, they are effectively ending the marriage. It's making it clear there is a consequence to their actions.

Usually by the time someone is announcing that there's no more sex, there's some serious problems happening in the relationship, and the no sex thing is merely a symptom of that. Typically the one announcing the no sex, is also basically saying they have no interest or intent to fix the marriage, and their expectation is that their spouse will stop complaining, take the blame for the state of the relationship, keep doing everything they are told to do, and generally give them a ton of space.

They always believe their partner will simply comply with all that, so you must immediately pop their bubble and make it clear you will not slink away with your tail between your legs.

These situations are almost always too far gone to have a hope of fixing.


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

What he said ...

Nice to see you still do drive by's Athol.


----------



## TXTrini (Oct 2, 2013)

Hopeful Cynic said:


> As far as I can tell, people who stop being interested in sex expect that the marriage vows of fidelity for better or worse will continue to apply in this 'worse' scenario, and their spouse will remain faithful and married, and adjust.
> 
> For example, my ex and I, during our marriage, both experienced medical issues that curtailed our sex life. Mine was temporary and I recovered, eager to resume a sex life, but by that time my ex's condition, which was chronic, had become more serious. I steeled myself to a future without sex, that I was willing to endure because I loved my spouse and had vowed to remain faithful. I assumed my ex had been and was returning the dedication.
> 
> ...


I am stunned. I could have written this. I am deeply sorry you had to live this, it is soul destroying if you let it, _hugs_


----------

