# Rejecting sex isn’t abusive, is it?



## madimoff (Feb 17, 2010)

Ok this is my attempt to open up the debate about rejection in another direction. Several times it’s been suggested recently in threads (and may have been before) that rejection of sex in a loving relationship – if long(ish) term or repeated; amounts to abuse because your partnership assumes a sexual relationship & lack of it is pretty much going back on an agreement. I think I can see that if, on all other levels – day to day activities: getting up going to work going about errands doing housework childcare diy socialising plus whatever I’ve missed – you get on just fine & dandy then, barring medical reasons, lack of sex might be plain unfair & unreasonable on whoever’s being denied. Not even the occasional big fight about some major family issue, in my view, takes away from a general ‘bonhomie’ day to day. But abusive? I'd question that word.
However. And it’s a big however. It's pretty much accepted that women (and to some extent men) *generally* have a greater need for emotional stability/niceness & to feel cherished out of bed before they can even give more than a passing thought to feeling horny enough to want to be in bed (or wherever!)
So – in relationships suffering loads of bickering (yes I put my hands up to being in one of these) and issues in any way affecting self-esteem, security & so on, however much you might want to put things right by showing your partner you love & fancy them it’s something you might want desperately one minute then when things flare up it’s the last thing on your mind. Or you might feel that ‘using sex’ to ‘be nice’ is actually pretty two-faced if you're actually feeling rather got at. Love is all very well but…… 
What does anyone else think? My story is of course far more complicated than I’ve hinted at here, and in fact things are improving at the moment, thanks in part to going through some of the threads in TAM! But the general principle I feel still stands good – I’ve never understood how folk having problems can be happy to leap up to be so very intimate with someone they’ve been arguing with only an hour or whatever earlier. 
(and as for ‘angry sex’, last time that got mentioned in the forum I mentioned it to OH after an argument & he was the one, interestingly, to say he thought it would have been totally inappropriate…..)


----------



## Susan2010 (Apr 19, 2010)

I'm not really sure what you're asking exactly. You first started talking about withholding long term and then began talking about arguments or something.

Anyway, it seems to me that withholding sex is labeled several different things. I guess some feel it is abusive, but they can feel however they want. Some feel it is woman's method of control, and they can call it whatever they want, too. I don't even call it withholding. I call it not wanting someone to touch me after he has done/said things that are disrespectful or critical or however mistreating in any manner. For some reason, just like they call it abusive or withholding or controlling or whatever they want to call it, guys also think they are supposed to treat a woman any way they want and still expect her to want them in bed. So then they're angry and say she uses sex to control, punish, etc. You are not the first woman to question. I am not the first to say this. This isn't even the first time I said it. They can hear it and read it over and over but it still does not sink in. Same as they don't listen to their wives until she becomes fed up with them and walks away or doesn't want them in bed ever again. They blame her and post here and other boards claiming themselves to be so wonderful and all they do for her. A woman does not resent a wonderful man. A woman does not withhold from a wonderful man. That is just the way it goes. But I'll get labeled a man hater for telling them yet again. Too bad. Their problems sure are not mine. I have a wonderful man, so they can ignore me and call me whatever they want. It's their problem, their denial, their non-existent sex life.


----------



## michzz (Jun 6, 2008)

Susan2010 said:


> A woman does not resent a wonderful man. A woman does not withhold from a wonderful man. That is just the way it goes. But I'll get labeled a man hater for telling them yet again. Too bad. Their problems sure are not mine. I have a wonderful man, so they can ignore me and call me whatever they want. It's their problem, their denial, their non-existent sex life.


I would edit your first sentence that I quoted to read:

"a WONDERFUL woman does not resent a wonderful man."

There are far too many types of women out there to give some kind of general statement like that.

Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.


----------



## Susan2010 (Apr 19, 2010)

I wrote it the way I wanted to say it, and you can say it however you wish. I was speaking in context to the subject matter. There is no way possible to write a novel and cover the gamut of possibilities and every little exception to every possible circumstance. My statement does not need that kind of correcting.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

There is nothing abusive about having boundaries. Everyone is entitled to say: When X, Y or Z happens it kills my desire. That is an honest statement of how you feel. 

With that said if you have a 3 page list of things that kill your desire and that list includes factors beyond your partners control that happen frequently like: arguing with your mother or having a stressful day at work and you those are things that happen frequently - well then I would have to guess that you just aren't that attracted to your partner. 

I also think there is a GIANT difference between an honest disagreement with a partner and a conflict in which your partner became abusive. 

So if we are watching tv news and W has one opinion and I have a different opinion and us disagreeing about who is right in a sane and calm manner = no sex then that sounds like an excuse. 

I think the right starting point is to ask yourself a simple question. Am I really attracted to this person? Do I truly WANT to have sex with them? If the answer to that is yes, then you are perfectly justified to sit them down and tell them THAT and also tell them what they need to change behaviorally to stop killing your desire. 

Clearly there are many cases where the man is simply not being a good H and this is the result. But I am going to guess that in a good 50 percent of the cases either she didn't have a lot of desire for him sexually (the appeal was more that he would be a good father/provider) OR he has gradually become a doormat in an attempt to always have peace in the house. 

It appears that most wives are very comfortable telling their H when he is being a jerk. They are MUCH less willing to tell him to: Man up and be more assertive, Back off and stop saying I love you all the time, or be more dominant in bed. 

The assertiveness problem and the smothering problem tend to wreak MASSIVE havoc because they happen so gradually.





madimoff said:


> Ok this is my attempt to open up the debate about rejection in another direction. Several times it’s been suggested recently in threads (and may have been before) that rejection of sex in a loving relationship – if long(ish) term or repeated; amounts to abuse because your partnership assumes a sexual relationship & lack of it is pretty much going back on an agreement. I think I can see that if, on all other levels – day to day activities: getting up going to work going about errands doing housework childcare diy socialising plus whatever I’ve missed – you get on just fine & dandy then, barring medical reasons, lack of sex might be plain unfair & unreasonable on whoever’s being denied. Not even the occasional big fight about some major family issue, in my view, takes away from a general ‘bonhomie’ day to day. But abusive? I'd question that word.
> However. And it’s a big however. It's pretty much accepted that women (and to some extent men) *generally* have a greater need for emotional stability/niceness & to feel cherished out of bed before they can even give more than a passing thought to feeling horny enough to want to be in bed (or wherever!)
> So – in relationships suffering loads of bickering (yes I put my hands up to being in one of these) and issues in any way affecting self-esteem, security & so on, however much you might want to put things right by showing your partner you love & fancy them it’s something you might want desperately one minute then when things flare up it’s the last thing on your mind. Or you might feel that ‘using sex’ to ‘be nice’ is actually pretty two-faced if you're actually feeling rather got at. Love is all very well but……
> What does anyone else think? My story is of course far more complicated than I’ve hinted at here, and in fact things are improving at the moment, thanks in part to going through some of the threads in TAM! But the general principle I feel still stands good – I’ve never understood how folk having problems can be happy to leap up to be so very intimate with someone they’ve been arguing with only an hour or whatever earlier.
> (and as for ‘angry sex’, last time that got mentioned in the forum I mentioned it to OH after an argument & he was the one, interestingly, to say he thought it would have been totally inappropriate…..)


----------



## LaCuriosa (Jan 13, 2010)

Well, there are varying degrees of abuse, and depending on the situation, I could consider it abusive, especially when it is a form of not only rejecting but withholding affection or trying to control the relationship. 

Again, it depends on the situation.

For my situation, I don't consider it abusive because I don't think it's intentional withholding, and he has made progress since I've started to push the issue over the past year . It takes a lot to crack my self-esteem. However, I'm the higher drive, "physical touch" woman to his lower drive (or at least hesitant to initiate), "quality time" man... After hearing "I'm tired" ten times in a row, when I'm the one who takes care of almost all of the household and children responsibilities while also working... Well, it flat out sucks, especially when I've made it clear that sex is important to me and that I'd like us to find a happy medium (me accepting less than the 4-5 times a week I'd like and him dealing with more than the once or twice he says he'd like, which turns into once every other week if I wait for him to initiate). 

I'd also say I might be a bit "backwards" or at least atypical in that I usually don't need emotional stability and "nicey nice" to feel in the mood. If I physically want it, then I want it. I think about it throughout the day, am excited to see him come home from work, and flirt or drop hints throughout the evening. The next day, I tend to be in a better mood, more positive, etc. 

As for angry sex or sex after an argument or make up sex... I think that the passion behind an argument is often the other side or part of the passion two people have for one another. And often arguments and conflict have positive results. If we argued an hour ago, but then really had a breakthrough or aired our differences, and if he's finally trying to initiate something (in my case), I would gladly take part and would feel that rejection of him would just be a slap in the face.

Just my two cents.

LC


----------



## LaCuriosa (Jan 13, 2010)

MEM11363 said:


> It appears that most wives are very comfortable telling their H when he is being a jerk. They are MUCH less willing to tell him to: Man up and be more assertive, Back off and stop saying I love you all the time, or be more dominant in bed.


:iagree:

I left a long term relationship of four years because I knew I could always get my way, which meant he wouldn't stand up or stay consistent with what he wanted/expected.

Me personally, I almost (or do) equate love with respect. If you can't respect yourself, don't expect me to. When my OH stands up for himself or talks to me about my faults (and I do have some!), then I have a deeper respect for him. He's not letting me run over him, compromising his beliefs or self-respect, or being Mr. Gushy Goo to tell me what he thinks I want to hear. 

LC


----------



## michzz (Jun 6, 2008)

Susan2010 said:


> I wrote it the way I wanted to say it, and you can say it however you wish. I was speaking in context to the subject matter. There is no way possible to write a novel and cover the gamut of possibilities and every little exception to every possible circumstance. My statement does not need that kind of correcting.


I gave you a man's perspective. Not asking you to write a novel or cover exceptions. It just definitely seemed to indicate a certain something. Not sure you saw it or what my addition of a word was meant to convey to you.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

For someone in a happy relationship Susan is consistently angry and combative. She tends to make sweeping statements about how the guy must be a screwup if his sex life is bad instead of asking questions to get a better understanding of the situation. 

She is smart, aggressive and angry. Not an appealing combination in anyone regardless of their gender. 

In year 21 of a sexually delightful marriage I am beginning to think part of it was luck - in terms of who I married. Sexual chemistry can be a fragile thing over a lifetime. 



michzz said:


> I gave you a man's perspective. Not asking you to write a novel or cover exceptions. It just definitely seemed to indicate a certain something. Not sure you saw it or what my addition of a word was meant to convey to you.


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

MEM11363 said:


> In year 21 of a sexually delightful marriage I am beginning to think part of it was luck - in terms of who I married. Sexual chemistry can be a fragile thing over a lifetime.


I would agree. It appears that you both chose well. And as you point out, nurturing the dynamic you establish instead of taking it for granted, or breaking it down - much like any investment, pays off over the long term.

I have been keenly interested in relationship and sexual dynamics since coming onboard to TAM in 08.

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?"

It makes a mind boggling easy defense and excuse to reject sex. Do it enough and it becomes passive. Saying no is easy. Saying yes = obligation and work, not pleasure and an experience to bond. 

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. 

BUT Michzz points out the keen difference between making beautiful music together or setting up a train wreck ... 



michzz said:


> "a WONDERFUL woman does not resent a wonderful man."


Her baseline self-esteem in terms of how she feels about herself cannot be overlooked, and what I learned is that a relationship can certainly boost self-esteem for a period of time (as it does in almost every case). But it needs to be healthy on it's own, instead of something that needs constant remediation. This was pretty much our case. I really wasn't doing anything different in terms of how I treated her ... but she no longer got the same 'boosts' from our interactions. If anything, on the negative side of things, she started getting the self esteem boost from saying 'No'. Thus rejection becomes the evil norm for what makes her feel better than complying with a partner that either doesn't interest her, or annoys her.

Attraction is that simple, fundamental, and obviously far more elusive over the long term than people would ever imagine, ingredient to avoid ever having to wonder if your being denied sex is abusive. It isn't abusive, but it is undoubtedly dysfunctional.


----------



## madimoff (Feb 17, 2010)

Great answers, thanks chaps. Don't agree with all, obviously but I'm glad the debate's going. Have to do home stuff at the moment, have skived off while 8yo watches ET to take a peek!
Will put together some more thoughts but essentially I still see a lot of people considering that 'not wanting to hop in the sack with someone who's been narky with you' (for want of a better way of putting it) is, if it happens quite a lot, abusive. I beg to differ but will put some more words together later.


----------



## Susan2010 (Apr 19, 2010)

When it comes to complaints about verbal, emotional, and mental abuse, women have it over the man by a vast ratio. Being a woman, I have experienced it. Being a woman with female friends, I have witnessed and heard about it. I read about it yesterday from a member of a step parenting board. That type of subject matter is extremely rare but after participating on the board for years, the member lamented her marriage dissolved as result of an affair. She mentioned he made her feel worthless, so she had no desire to be intimate with him anymore. Being a member of this board, I read about it every day, and so do you.

My statement had nothing to do with either person being "wonderful" or not wonderful. I was talking about the men who come here and proclaim themselves to be wonderful in many wonderful ways. So few, way too few, actually admit to mistreating their wives. They only complain their wives refuse sex and they label the refusals from withholding to controlling to punishing to abusive. My whole point was to show a major and common example of why their wives deny sex, that their wives don't want them when they mistreat her or ever again after extended periods of mistreatment. So, I was pointing out they obviously cannot be so "wonderful" if their wives deny sex. But you both took my words and altered that very simple premise.

I also pointed out that no matter how many times men do it and are told about it, no matter how often they read about it, not matter how often they hear about it, they never, ever get the message. It's almost as if they feel entitled to mistreat their wives until she becomes fed up and leaves. Then they want to change their tune. So Deejo and and Michzz both come along and prove my point beyond a shadow of a doubt. Instead of taking my very simple point for what it is worth, they come along to ignore it by such a great degree as to change my words and alter the meaning completely. Thereby, again proving my point and refusing to get the message. Go figure.



Deejo said:


> 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?"


Deejo, you change my meaning again in this respect too. Me talking about a husband who makes his wife feel bad by mistreating/abusing her is absolutely NOT the same as your wife saying you don't make her feel good. WTF???!!!


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

Susan2010 said:


> Deejo, you change my meaning again in this respect too. Me talking about a husband who makes his wife feel bad by mistreating/abusing her is absolutely NOT the same as your wife saying you don't make her feel good. WTF???!!!


"Lighten up, Francis."


----------



## michzz (Jun 6, 2008)

Susan2010;158884
My statement had nothing to do with either person being "wonderful" or not wonderful. I was talking about the men who come here and proclaim themselves to be wonderful in many wonderful ways. [/QUOTE said:


> So this statement then makes no sense to me:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## BigBadWolf (Nov 30, 2009)

This thread is spinning in needless confusion.

For a woman to not feel sexually attracted to her man is not abuse, it is her communicating that her man is not lighting her fire and something needs to change.

It is the man's responsibility in the relationship to recognize this, and for the man in the successful marriage, he is recognizing these things before the woman is needing to remind him, keeping her fire lit and having very matched and passionate desires for each other. 

This describes my goal, as in a marriage over 20 years and still very sexual and passionate and for me to be in what I would consider a most enviable scenario to most men.

But to this talk of "withholding", I'm not sure this is even able to be answered in any general sense, as there are many ideas to the nature of relationships in these modern times that I simply cannot understand and do not agree with. 

If a couple in relationship is needing to have a woman withold or grant sex as a reward or punishment to a man, then that relationship is by definition already abusive and disfunctional and happiness is not going to happen.



> (and as for ‘angry sex’, last time that got mentioned in the forum I mentioned it to OH after an argument & he was the one, interestingly, to say he thought it would have been totally inappropriate…..)


This should not surpise anyone. 

Too often the good man is unfairly stereotyped as a caveman with no emotional component to sex. Although the man strives to dominate, there is nothing sexual attractive or emotionally fulfilling to the good man toward a woman who views him as a dissappointment and makes him feel as he is a failure. Take that to the bank.


----------



## Nine-E (Oct 7, 2008)

Susan2010 said:


> A woman does not withhold from a wonderful man.


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. :scratchhead:

We were married only a few months when the sex stopped. She was still happy. Happy with me, and happily married.


----------



## Nine-E (Oct 7, 2008)

Deejo said:


> 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?"
> 
> ...


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.

- Nine-E


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

This is pure self delusion. 

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. 



Nine-E said:


> 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.
> 
> - Nine-E


----------



## madimoff (Feb 17, 2010)

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.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

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.)



madimoff said:


> 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.


----------



## LaCuriosa (Jan 13, 2010)

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.

LC


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

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.




LaCuriosa said:


> 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."???
> 
> ...


----------



## cb45 (Oct 2, 2009)

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!*

peace---------------------------ray:always-------------:corkysm60:


----------



## Kobo (May 13, 2010)

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_


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

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. 



Kobo said:


> 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_


----------



## Kobo (May 13, 2010)

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_


----------



## cb45 (Oct 2, 2009)

MEM11363 said:


> 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!:smthumbup:
> 
> ...


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

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.





cb45 said:


> MEM11363 said:
> 
> 
> > A WOMAN'S EMOTIONAL NEEDS do not consistently trump her PARTNERS EMOTIONAL NEEDS.---quite right my good man.
> ...


----------

