# article on infidelity and thoughts on sex in marriage



## Emptyshelldad (Apr 29, 2013)

It's mostly must thought provoking, but tackles some good issues......well if not tackles, at least gives them a hard shove

Does a Sexless Relationship Justify Infidelity? | Psychology Today


----------



## Honeybee2 (May 3, 2014)

Interesting questions raised in the article. I think the whole issue around infidelity is not about the sex per se as much as the honesty or dishonesty around it. So ask the question this way; Does a sexless marriage give you a justification for lying? 

I don't think so.


----------



## Allen_A (Nov 18, 2013)

I found the article ridiculously short-sighted and ignorant about the actual marital issues that encompass infidelity.

As was stated, infidelity isn't just someone having sex in secret. That's ALL this guy seems to think infidelity encompasses... terribly IGNORANT to say the least.

Infidelity involves deception, disrespect, toxicity, STD risk, financial infidelity/waste of family funds, neglect etc

This guy writing this article is terribly ignorant about the actual details.

I get the distinct impression he hasn't done a shred of research on this topic and is just pulling this out of his behind.

Applying logic to a tunnel-view of a misconceived problem will NOT bear FRUIT.


----------



## Forest (Mar 29, 2014)

Is there a correlation between sex and other activities expected in marriage?

For instance, my wife once irritated a couple of her friends (who were griping about husbands) that a husband's trip to the mall at least rates a blowjob.


----------



## MattMatt (May 19, 2012)

He isn't a relationship expert. He has a PhD in Philosophy.


----------



## LongWalk (Apr 4, 2013)

The question raised is important. There are many aspects of marriage which a considered deal breakers. Things that many expect:

1) No physical abuse
2) No mental cruelty/abuse (outbursts of rage, shouting, swearing)
3) No degradation (undermining self confidence)
4) No lying
5) No quitting the marriage because of ill health
6) No addictions (gambling, porn, alcohol, drugs)
7) No failure to support family economically
8) No infidelity 
9) No abandonment
10) No sexless

If a spouse failed on enough items in the list, it would be absurd for them to not see cheating as a possible consequence. From a moral point of view cheating is wrong. But if your married to a manipulative heroin addict who is not interested in sex and had abandoned his or her family by ending up in prison, would an affair be really unfair?


----------



## Allen_A (Nov 18, 2013)

LongWalk said:


> . But if your married to a manipulative heroin addict who is not interested in sex and had abandoned his or her family by ending up in prison, would an affair be really unfair?


It would be STUPID.

I have said this many times before.

The infidelity paradox still reigns here :

The only people worth having an affair with, would not have anything to do with an affair.

If you want to cheat, you are scraping the bottom of the barrel to do it.

You may as well just get a divorce, it would be far more mature, dignified, and less destructive.


----------



## Allen_A (Nov 18, 2013)

MattMatt said:


> He isn't a relationship expert. He has a PhD in Philosophy.


And there you have it. Ivory tower logic at it's finest.


----------



## Emptyshelldad (Apr 29, 2013)

I see a lot about people saying he doesn't know what he talks about. Forget him. Look just at the issues he raises and let's open a dialogue about them here where we tam'ers might have a better touch with the real world of infidelity. 

I myself was not in any type of a sexless relationship. But I wouldn't be in one for long. Though I do think ID be much more susceptible to an affair if I was in a sexless relationship. ID stay thinking we will work it out, but it's like starving a person when they should get their food only from you. They may stay and try to work it out but they will be much more likely to be tempted when a fresh steak is wafted under their nose. 

Much of my research has led me to the conclusion that the most dangerous assumption is that an affair only happens to a certain type of person, ie an immoral person or a person whom is mental in some way. What it states is that anyone can be susceptible to an affair under the right circumstances. 
Which explains why so many bs say "I never thought she /he was the type to do this." 

I fell into this trap and allowed my wife to go to slippery slopes, and she fell. 

Though I will also agree there are those who are more likely to fall, but no one is immune. 

Thoughts.?


----------



## LongWalk (Apr 4, 2013)

Good people have affairs, even though it is bad behavior. The desire for sex is an extremely powerful. Look at Tears. Obviously a very nice person. She was the single mother of two young daughters. Prior to her husband, who had had many partners before her, she had been a virgin. 

A man she met while socializing in bar with friends got her phone number and the next she afternoon had she with him in his apartment. She felt guilty and after two or three days confessed to her husband, who consequently immediately left and divorced her.

She spend two sexless years alone, trying to get him back while he went through a string of women and drank too much.

There are probably many military wives who are not bad people. Their husband goes to Iraq and they make it through a two deployment. She learns to be independent. He comes back and is not the same person, neither is she. He is moody and depressed. She doesn't file for divorce because she wants to be loyal and repair their marriage. He gets deployed again. She feels relieved when he leaves. She has an affair. Divorce is put off because he is not there. I am not sure that you can divorce as easily when someone is on active duty abroad.

Sexless months could be a major factor in breaking such a marriage.


----------



## BookOfJob (Jul 6, 2012)

Allen_A said:


> The only people worth having an affair with, would not have anything to do with an affair.


That's about all there is to it.


----------



## BookOfJob (Jul 6, 2012)

LongWalk said:


> ......Sexless months could be a major factor in breaking such a marriage.


If there's a problem in the marriage, would cheating be a way, or the best way, to fix it?


----------



## Allen_A (Nov 18, 2013)

Emptyshelldad said:


> I see a lot about people saying he doesn't know what he talks about. Forget him. Look just at the issues he raises and let's open a dialogue about them here where we tam'ers might have a better touch with the real world of infidelity. ...
> I fell into this trap and allowed my wife to go to slippery slopes, and she fell.
> 
> Though I will also agree there are those who are more likely to fall, but no one is immune.
> ...


I really don't think there's much to discuss.

Either you maintain dignity and respect for 

a. your spouse
b. your family
c. yourself

or you don't.

You either choose to 

a. find a way to resolve your sexual differences with your spouse 
b. find a way to resolve your sexual differences without your spouse

lying, sneaking around, and cheating is option b. I think we can all agree that promiscuous behavior brings toxicity into the home no one here would advocate? Can we agree that any kind of promiscuous behavior DOES have implications for the home that this moron in this article sidesteps? We read it every day here. Too bad that PhD [cough] didn't bother spending even ONE DAY on a marriage support forum or he would know that.

Promiscuous behavior is not a viable alternative to a fulfilling sex life.

It really is that simple.

This whole discussion is ridiculous in my opinion.

_Resorting to promiscuous behavior to satisfy your sexual urges is akin to robbing a liquor store to pay your mortgage._

Sorry, but if you are short of cash, you would do best to find a way to pay your expenses without breaking the law.

What bugs me about this article is this moron has this idea that infidelity is an either-or situation.

It's not.

He has this idea in his head that you either 

a. cheat
b. or go without

And he's oversimplified the discussion into those terms and examines the moral implications til he turns blue.

He's a philosopher I get it.

Here in the REAL world we examine ALL the implications, not just the ones that we find interesting from a philosophy standpoint.

_If you value, respect, and maintain dignity for your spouse, family, and marriage, you will find a way to resolve your differences without resorting to sacrificing that respect and dignity you have for your spouse, family, and marriage._

You find a way to make it work within the marriage OR you file for divorce and exit the marriage, family, and relationship with yours and your spouse's dignity in tact.

If you accept that premise, his whole article is just a pointless discussion.


----------



## Allen_A (Nov 18, 2013)

BookOfJob said:


> If there's a problem in the marriage, would cheating be a way, or the best way, to fix it?


Resorting to infidelity to "fix" a marriage is akin to robbing a liquor store to "fix" your finances.

_Infidelity is not a fix. Infidelity just escalates the problem.
_

Anybody here watch the TV series _Breaking Bad_?

Notice any parallels there???


----------



## Allen_A (Nov 18, 2013)

> Here are the two questions the author postulates in the article :
> 
> _1. Is an ongoing refusal to have sex with your spouse a betrayal similar to adultery?
> 2. Does a persistent absence of sex within a marriage excuse or justify going outside the marriage to get it?
> _


NO. Not even a close call, on both counts. Can we all agree on that?

Discussion at this point is therefore moot.


----------



## Emptyshelldad (Apr 29, 2013)

Allen_A said:


> I really don't think there's much to discuss.
> 
> Either you maintain dignity and respect for
> 
> ...



The world is simpler when we choose to believe things are either black or white. Unfortunetly, as many of us bs are discovering the hard way, the world is mostly made of varying shades of gray...(perhaps 50 shades of gray,  sorry couldn't help myself)

I find that the idea that infidelity comes to a matter of simple choice, of which a person is expected to be completely cognizant of the exact ramifications of their actions to them, their children, their families, etc at all times, to be an drastic oversimplification which I could only agree to if I was willing to willfully ignore the facts that are brought up in almost very case of infidelity I have had to (unfortunately) become very familiar with as of late. 

That's like saying, "if your spouse cheats, then either 
A). You divorce them and keep your dignity, pride , self worth intact

Or 
B). You stay because your scarred and prove you have none of the above. 

I disagree......again.....life In the labyrinth of choices in the enigmatic gray area. 

Though I want to make clear, that I also believe that there is not a good reason to cheat. The decision to do so is all on the ws. However, there are mitigating circumstances in many cases, which I feel ignoring, is akin to burying our heads in the sand.


----------



## Allen_A (Nov 18, 2013)

Emptyshelldad said:


> Though I want to make clear, that I also believe that there is not a good reason to cheat. The decision to do so is all on the ws. However, there are mitigating circumstances in many cases, which I feel ignoring, is akin to burying our heads in the sand.


I am all for hearing the guilty part out before sentence gets passed.

That being said, I weigh "mitigating circumstances" lightly against alternatives left unexplored due to the convenience of a quick and collusion-rife roll in the hay.

The simple fact of the matter is this :

Less than 1% of spouses that engage in promiscuous behavior in secret take the time to WARN their SPOUSE before doing so. Some do, but its VERY rare.

If sex is that important to you, then at least give your spouse the dignity of a head's up before you unzip your pants.

I am a firm believer that there is a middle ground between :

a. a rich, fulfilling, and satisfying sex life with your spouse
z. collude in secret promiscuous behavior that in-dignifies you spouse, your family, and yourself

There IS a middle ground between a and z. Children reject that middle ground, and resort to z. ADULTS find the middle ground. That may be divorce, that may be an open marriage, that may be a simple date night schedule. But b - z is negotiated activity between both partners.

No matter how a-sexual your spouse may become, they have the right to an informed decision. Infidelity, due to it's deceptive nature, STEALS that opportunity from your spouse.

You are thieving from your partner in life. Think about that.


----------



## LongWalk (Apr 4, 2013)

I agree with you ESD.

If some man or woman has spouse with MS who is progressively crippled over a decade and sex has been off the table for a long time, they may not wish to divorce because they want to stay with their ill spouse until they die. MS can go faster or slower. So you work you butt off helping the ill spouse eat, bath, lie down, sit up, change the DVD, etc. And then what, no sex until they die?

Why not cheat out of the house in such as situation?

The MS afflicted spouse might be ok with it but not want to know. They might also not be ok with it.

The world is not black and white, as ESD points out.

Cheating is bad because it is violation of one of the most basic contract. The agreement between man and woman is so basic that it exists without words. The fact that there are wedding vows shows that fidelity is not enduring. So, civilization has created a formal contract to aid the bond.

Guess what? No fault divorce means that the vows are legally meaningless, a clear signal that cheating is more ok than it used to be. In the Old Testament cheaters got the death penalty. Just 50 years ago they were punished in divorce. Heck, even divorce was not permitted everywhere until relatively recently.

So the relativism of crimes against the marital contract has turned into a close horserace.

ESD,

Have you have philosophical discussions about the ethics fidelity with your ex?

As long she thinks she is winning you back does that give her life a kind of goal?

If you promise her fidelity, would she then feel empty?


----------



## Allen_A (Nov 18, 2013)

LongWalk said:


> I agree with you ESD.
> 
> If some man or woman has spouse with MS who is progressively crippled over a decade and sex has been off the table for a long time, they may not wish to divorce because they want to stay with their ill spouse until they die. MS can go faster or slower. So you work you butt off helping the ill spouse eat, bath, lie down, sit up, change the DVD, etc. And then what, no sex until they die?
> 
> Why not cheat out of the house in such as situation?


I think you guys need to clear up some confusion here.

There is a big difference between 

a. an open marriage, negotiated with your spouse
b. a collusion-rife affair that violates the dignity of your entire home

You guys need to clarify exactly what you are or aren't advocating here.

To my mind infidelity is NOT something that can be negotiated with a spouse.

If you want to go outside the marriage, and you negotiate that with your spouse, your fidelity is left in tact. There is no infidelity taking place. You have an open marriage.

If you want to go outside the marriage, and you violate the dignity of your home to collude in secret, your fidelity is severely fractured at that point. There is no marriage taking place. You have a time bomb waiting to go off when they find out.

You guys really need to clear up what you are talking about.

Deception and disrespect are the key points of contention here, not getting laid.

If you want to go outside a marriage for sex, at least negotiate that with your spouse. Don't lie, cheat, and disrespect your spouse to do it. If you are even considering that, then get a divorce and have sex with other people in the honest daylight. You will find a much better class of sex partner that way.


----------



## russell28 (Apr 17, 2013)

Allen_A said:


> You are thieving from your partner in life. Think about that.


Exactly, a WS basically steals something from the partner and gives it to another secretly.. something they can never get back.

The no sex thing, no brainer.. find a way to get/give pleasure, or get out if it's not working. Cheating doesn't fix anything, it just creates more problems. Now you not only have no sex, you have no morals and no self respect. Instead you have a head full of justifications, lies and excuses.


----------



## Allen_A (Nov 18, 2013)

Russel I think these guys have somehow lumped open marriage into the infidelity discussion. Which to my mind is a whole other subject.

I often see that happening. When people want to avoid looking bad about advocating infidelity they deceptively make it a case of open marriage instead.

To my mind there are no mitigating circumstances surrounding deception. You either put your spouse in the loop about where your junk will be going, or you don't. The former is an open marriage, the latter is collusion-rife promiscuity, cheating, and an indignity to your spouse.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

Within the defined scope of the article, the author does raise good questions, questions certain irrational assumptions and logical inconsistencies about traditional vows, but does not propose or advocate for any particular answer.



> Partners are expected to abstain from sexual or romantic activity outside of the relationship, but does this imply that they are entitled to it inside the relationship?
> 
> That’s the crux of the matter: It seems natural to say that if one partner promises not to seek something outside the relationship, then he or she has a right to expect it within the relationship. But in ethics, we make a distinction—albeit a somewhat controversial one—between duties of inaction and duties of action. We feel more comfortable saying that someone should abstain for doing something rather than saying they should do something.


This article is about a very specific ethical and philosophical concept, not infidelity in general or in actual experience.


----------



## Allen_A (Nov 18, 2013)

Married but Happy said:


> This article is about a very specific ethical and philosophical concept, not infidelity in general or in actual experience.


It's a pointless exercise :

_You cannot argue someone into having sex with you.
_

That does not work, and borders on harassment.

If you want something from your spouse, you negotiate that. Arguments are for the Universities and the political forum. A marriage is something you negotiate, day by day.


----------



## Emptyshelldad (Apr 29, 2013)

Allen_A said:


> I think you guys need to clear up some confusion here.
> 
> You guys need to clarify exactly what you are or aren't advocating here.


To clear up any confusion that may be out there. 
First and foremost, I am not "advocating" anything. I am saying that if you staved your spouse, and they talked with you about, and they tried different techniques, to get you them to let you have some food and you've been being patiently starved out. So now, picture it.....a man or woman starved by the very person whom is supposed to be giving them their food. So they sit there, ribs showing, emaciated, visibly starved.....and now someone comes along and offers them food.......and they accept.

Now imagine how people might view that scenario........then consider how the bs will look when they come out all indignant like they did nothing wrong and are casting full blame on the starved spouse. 

That's where mitigating circumstances come into play. 

Again I'm not advocating a thing except to try prevent infidelity in all relationships, and I think that this, as well as many other issues are involved in some cases. 

So I am not advocating infidelity under circumstances, but rather enlightenment under all circumstances that if we don't tend to our love garden, then it leaves it ripe for weeds to take seed. 




Allen_A said:


> To my mind infidelity is NOT something that can be negotiated with a spouse.
> 
> If you want to go outside the marriage, and you negotiate that with your spouse, your fidelity is left in tact. There is no infidelity taking place. You have an open marriage.
> 
> If you want to go outside the marriage, and you violate the dignity of your home to collude in secret, your fidelity is severely fractured at that point. There is no marriage taking place. You have a time bomb waiting to go off when they find out.



On the above points, we agree. This would be ideal. Now like many idealistic views, I don't think this will really happen mainstream, but still, I do fundamentally agree. 

I view infidelity as a sin against god and love. And I believe that it is a trap of sin set by the dark one, or dark force if you will. And, as with all sin, it is born in the hearts of man. And our weakness is with us always. So we must actively guard against this corruption of ourselves and our loved ones, by keeping them close to love, not rigidly commanding that they follow a legal dogma. Especially one which we pick and choose which parts we should consider important. 

While I view infidelity as a sin against the marriage, I too, view a willful obstinance to not address equally important issues in a marriage, as starving your spouse, and then becoming furious and righteously indignant when they scrape food from the dumpster. 

And no.....that's not saying that some spouses, despite being well fed, don't still choose to eat out of the dumpster because they like the taste. But I think many do so out of desperation, which I don't necessarily equate with "a simple choice".


----------



## Emptyshelldad (Apr 29, 2013)

Allen_A said:


> It's a pointless exercise :
> 
> _You cannot argue someone into having sex with you.
> _


I agree here. You cannot argue someone into fulfilling the marital or relationship agreement. And a failure of them to do so in the first place, which necessitated the "arguing them", is a stab at the very heart relationship. 



Allen_A said:


> That does not work, and borders on harassment.
> 
> If you want something from your spouse, you negotiate that. Arguments are for the Universities and the political forum. A marriage is something you negotiate, day by day.


People will not live their whole lives on a basis that they must negotiate their needs on a daily basis. They will simply go to someone whom views their needs as actual needs and not just negotiable desires. 

Now it would be ideal if they ended the relationship that is no longer fulfilling those needs first, but often this is not the case. And I find that this would make little difference in most peoples cases as well. Hence the number of people who are shocked and hurt and betrayed when their longtime spouse comes to them and tells them they are done and divorcing. The the leaving spouse pursues new relationship quickly and other spouse is heartbroken that they chose another man or woman over themselves. 

Infidelity is, in most cases not about the breaking of a promise or vow; but rather our spouse choosing another over ourselves. Hence why we fixate on how the other man or woman compares to ourselves. It's why it hurts our manhood. Your lady chose someone else. If the breaking of the vow was the most significant part, then all infidelities that occurred prior to saying "I Do", would be meaningless. Which many can tell you that it's just as painful even without the official vow, which supports it's about more than broken promises. 

I seriously doubt that most would be perfectly fine about their spouse having sex with another, so long as they went down the appropriate lawyerly checklist of requirements to nullify any deception first. Some people want to act like it's the fact that they broke a promise which is damaging, when for many, it's the fact they chose someone else. 

And for the record......I am in no way advocating for an open marriage. So no.....it's not some sly and deceptive way of cloaking infidelity in open marriage. (An assumption at which I'm still struggling to understand how any person could leap to based in this discussion) 

I'm advocating for better tending of our love gardens in all ways. Thus equalling a much better marriage. Free from infidelity and many other soul crushing issues. Though, again, I realize for some this still wouldn't stop their broken spouse from stepping out.


----------



## russell28 (Apr 17, 2013)

Emptyshelldad said:


> To clear up any confusion that may be out there.
> First and foremost, I am not "advocating" anything. I am saying that if you staved your spouse, and they talked with you about, and they tried different techniques, to get you them to let you have some food and you've been being patiently starved out. So now, picture it.....a man or woman starved by the very person whom is supposed to be giving them their food. So they sit there, ribs showing, emaciated, visibly starved.....and now someone comes along and offers them food.......and they accept.
> 
> Now imagine how people might view that scenario........then consider how the bs will look when they come out all indignant like they did nothing wrong and are casting full blame on the starved spouse.
> ...


When this new person comes and offers food, the starved spouse can go to the spouse that's been keeping food from them, and say "If you don't give me food, I'm going to let this new person feed me," or they could leave. 

Because someone neglects you, that doesn't give you the right to abuse them. You can say after the fact, that you abused them because they neglected you, but at the end of the day you still abused them. If you choose to take the high road, and get out without the abuse, you can spare yourself the need to fill your own head with bull about how your cowardly behavior was justified, because life is hard.


----------



## Emptyshelldad (Apr 29, 2013)

russell28 said:


> When this new person comes and offers food, the starved spouse can go to the spouse that's been keeping food from them, and say "If you don't give me food, I'm going to let this new person feed me," or they could leave.
> 
> Because someone neglects you, that doesn't give you the right to abuse them. You can say after the fact, that you abused them because they neglected you, but at the end of the day you still abused them. If you choose to take the high road, and get out without the abuse, you can spare yourself the need to fill your own head with bull about how your cowardly behavior was justified, because life is hard.


I should clarify that I think that carrying on an affair is wrong. Most of what I'm talking about is a situation of a person making a singular poor choice in a lone incident. After that incident, the ws should confess to the bs and the marriage should either end, or be renegotiated.


----------



## MSP (Feb 9, 2012)

Emptyshelldad said:


> To clear up any confusion that may be out there.
> First and foremost, I am not "advocating" anything. I am saying that if you staved your spouse, and they talked with you about, and they tried different techniques, to get you them to let you have some food and you've been being patiently starved out. So now, picture it.....a man or woman starved by the very person whom is supposed to be giving them their food. So they sit there, ribs showing, emaciated, visibly starved.....and now someone comes along and offers them food.......and they accept.
> 
> Now imagine how people might view that scenario........then consider how the bs will look when they come out all indignant like they did nothing wrong and are casting full blame on the starved spouse.
> ...


Well said. :iagree:


----------



## MSP (Feb 9, 2012)

I am in no way defending affairs here, but people talk about divorce as a moral choice and cheating as breaking your vows. But when you got married, didn't you also make a vow to stay together? Both choices break the same vows, albeit in a different fashion. One is obvious, one is sneaky. Both are hurtful.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

Allen_A said:


> It's a pointless exercise :
> 
> _You cannot argue someone into having sex with you.
> _
> ...


Who said anything about arguing, or even negotiating? I didn't, nor does the article.

The POINT is the intellectual analysis of an ethical problem, and the correct definition of terms on which to base the discussion. Some of us are interested in the ethical and philosophical issues, even if you are not.


----------



## Allen_A (Nov 18, 2013)

Emptyshelldad said:


> And no.....that's not saying that some spouses, despite being well fed, don't still choose to eat out of the dumpster because they like the taste. But I think many do so out of desperation, which I don't necessarily equate with "a simple choice".


I would challenge your analogy of sex and food as inaccurate.

Sorry, but you can survive without sex in your life, you can't sustain a life without food.

MANY people do just fine with minimal or even no sex.

If you want something, that isn't happening in your marriage, you negotiate that as best you can. If that fails, you file for divorce.

To my mind there is no other dignified option.

If you choose to indignify your marriage, your spouse, and yourself by "scraping at the dumpster" you allowed yourself to be starved to that point rather than simply divorcing with dignity.

Your sex life isn't that of a homeless person, you do have choices other than the dumpster. Choices that can be made well in advance with your spouse and family in the loop.

Sorry, no sympathy here for dumpster jockeys. ZERO.


----------



## maincourse99 (Aug 15, 2012)

When you marry someone it's with the understanding that sex is part of the deal, unless mutually agreed upon beforehand. So, yes, I believe you have obligated yourself, unless there are mitigating circumstances such as abuse.

If one spouse decides to withhold and not work at solving it, and the other decides that it's unacceptable, then divorce is the option, not cheating.


----------



## russell28 (Apr 17, 2013)

MSP said:


> I am in no way defending affairs here, but people talk about divorce as a moral choice and cheating as breaking your vows. But when you got married, didn't you also make a vow to stay together? Both choices break the same vows, albeit in a different fashion. One is obvious, one is sneaky. Both are hurtful.


Yes, asking for a divorce because your spouse is neglecting your sexual needs is exactly the same as sneaking around and sleeping with another person while you're lying to your spouse about being faithful. They both hurt.

Handing someone a knife and telling them you need them to sever the marriage is exactly the same as taking that knife and sticking it in their back when they aren't looking, because they both hurt.


----------



## LongWalk (Apr 4, 2013)

If we look at any other contract, the moment one party fails to live up to contract, the other party may also break the agreement.

For example, I am supposed to deliver three tons of barrelled pickles to company X the third Tuesday of every month. Company X is supposed pay in full by the third Thursday of every month. When Company X fails to make a payment, the next month do I have an obligation to ship pickles?

Often companies regulate these questions in contracts.

In the case of marriage the law generally says zero about infidelity. No fault is dominant. The state sees no damages to a betrayed spouse. So from legal point of view there is nothing wrong with denying sex or cheating. The courts don't care.

Then we come to the question of traditional expectations. Generally nobody agrees that their spouse has a right to cheat. However, many would agree that refusing sex is ok under certain circumstances.

If a SAHW who was eligible for life time alimony said to her husband that she was not going to have sex with him anymore unless he bought her an expensive new car, he might not agree. Furthermore, he might not seek a divorce because it would ruin him. Would he have a right to cheat? Or would he have a right to announce that he was going to go outside of the marriage for sex?

If he told his wife, I am going to sleep with Sharon down the street, if his wife did not give her permission, what then?


----------



## russell28 (Apr 17, 2013)

LongWalk said:


> If we look at any other contract, the moment one party fails to live up to contract, the other party may also break the agreement.
> 
> For example, I am supposed to deliver three tons of barrelled pickles to company X the third Tuesday of every month. Company X is supposed pay in full by the third Thursday of every month. When Company X fails to make a payment, the next month do I have an obligation to ship pickles?
> 
> ...


If she's using sex to get what she wants, and he's not happy buying her cars, then he needs to divorce her and deal with the fallout. I'd suggest he get a gun, and make her sign a post-nup saying she gets nothing, then divorce her. Then buy that car she wanted, and give it to a hot girl 20 years younger. The End.


----------



## LongWalk (Apr 4, 2013)

By introducing the gun – even as a joke – you are illustrating the dilemma: no spouse has any right to anything in marriage, except to reside in the family home.


----------



## russell28 (Apr 17, 2013)

LongWalk said:


> By introducing the gun – even as a joke – you are illustrating the dilemma: no spouse has any right to anything in marriage, except to reside in the family home.


It's assumed that when you marry someone, you will have a healthy sex life. No man in his right mind would get married if there was a 'no sex' clause in there anywhere. Any man that says he would is either lying or a closet homosexual. If a woman doesn't mention it, then tries it, it's a breach of that understood part of the contract.

..and you introduced a gold digging blackmailer, so I had to get a gun.


----------



## LongWalk (Apr 4, 2013)

Russell,

The key word here is assumption. In fact, you cannot write a prenup that allows a spouse to get out if alimony if the marriage turns out sexless. A judge will toss it out.

_Posted via *Topify* using iPhone/iPad_


----------



## russell28 (Apr 17, 2013)

LongWalk said:


> Russell,
> 
> The key word here is assumption. In fact, you cannot write a prenup that allows a spouse to get out if alimony if the marriage turns out sexless. A judge will toss it out.
> 
> _Posted via *Topify* using iPhone/iPad_


Ah, this is why in this scenario, where you're concerned that this person won't give you sex, or might blackmail you, or you have a thing where getting a divorce will tarnish your name. You don't marry, you purchase a blow up doll and put a wig on it and name it Trisha. This doll will always give you sex, and it will never need any money. It's the perfect woman.


----------



## Squeakr (May 1, 2013)

LongWalk said:


> If we look at any other contract, the moment one party fails to live up to contract, the other party may also break the agreement.
> 
> For example, I am supposed to deliver three tons of barrelled pickles to company X the third Tuesday of every month. Company X is supposed pay in full by the third Thursday of every month. When Company X fails to make a payment, the next month do I have an obligation to ship pickles?
> 
> ...


In this case he always has the "option" to relocate to a state that would allow him to divorce and move on without the lifetime alimony payment to worry about. That would show her, and since she is not willing to work with him, then he could get the divorce elsewhere. Sorry but he has no "rights" other than those granted through the constitution. If someone kills/ rapes/ maims myself or my loved ones do I have the "right" to hunt them down and do unto them the same?? The answer is a resounding No! (and things happening while defending yourself during the initial action don't count, it is when the action is down and someone pursues it further after time has passed.)

Sorry but some of the arcane analogies being thrown around here are nothing more than straw man arguments. It makes no sense to compare someone being starved to someone that is being refused sex. They are not even in the same league or fair comparisons, as have been pointed out one can live a long and happy life without sex, but can't live without food, air, or water.


----------



## russell28 (Apr 17, 2013)

Squeakr said:


> In this case he always has the "option" to relocate to a state that would allow him to divorce and move on without the lifetime alimony payment to worry about. That would show her, and since she is not willing to work with him, then he could get the divorce elsewhere. Sorry but he has no "rights" other than those granted through the constitution. If someone kills/ rapes/ maims myself or my loved ones do I have the "right" to hunt them down and do unto them the same?? The answer is a resounding No! (and things happening while defending yourself during the initial action don't count, it is when the action is down and someone pursues it further after time has passed.)
> 
> Sorry but some of the arcane analogies being thrown around here are nothing more than straw man arguments. It makes no sense to compare someone being starved to someone that is being refused sex. They are not even in the same league or fair comparisons, as have been pointed out one can live a long and happy life without sex, but can't live without food, air, or water.


My blow up doll is interested in your straw man.. I think they'll make a cute couple. My blow up doll needs sex to live, but doesn't need food. Go figure.


----------



## Squeakr (May 1, 2013)

LongWalk said:


> Russell,
> 
> The key word here is assumption. In fact, you cannot write a prenup that allows a spouse to get out if alimony if the marriage turns out sexless. A judge will toss it out.
> 
> _Posted via *Topify* using iPhone/iPad_


Just like you are keying in on the assumption part, your statement is not true either. You can in fact have write and have a prenup that includes sex related issued and the consequences for breaking those agreed upon terms, it is then up to the state and the judge's decision on whether to consider the prenup legally binding in such instances. Although it is agreed that most will throw it out based on those terms, it is not a steadfast rule that it will happen. 

Also depending on the states, it is not just assumed but a condition of marriage and if the marriage turns out sexless, an annulment would be granted, which declares the marriage null and void as if it never happened and no alimony would be granted in this case as the marriage was considered to have never happened. I was just looking at different states a few days ago and TN has such a clause in its annulment wording,such that it could be something that takes place after even 10 years or more of marriage and not just limited to the first year of marriage.


----------



## Plan 9 from OS (Jul 13, 2012)

russell28 said:


> Because someone neglects you, that doesn't give you the right to abuse them. You can say after the fact, that you abused them because they neglected you, but at the end of the day you still abused them. If you choose to take the high road, and get out without the abuse, you can spare yourself the need to fill your own head with bull about how your cowardly behavior was justified, because life is hard.


Neglect is a type of abuse. A BS will say that the affair shattered their self esteem. I agree that infidelity is a type of poison. Being on the wrong end of a sexless marriage will also shatter someone's self esteem. Physical, emotional, verbal abuse, withholding sex and pissing away the family finances are also poisons that ruin marriages too.

You find plenty of stories in CWI where a BS is royally hosed by his WS thru cheating. I feel terrible for many of them. You also ran into stories where a BS comes on here and wails about cheated on - only to find out (for example): 1) the BS cheated first, 2) the BS is physically/emotionally/verbally abusive, 3) BS made the marriage sexless, 4) BS abuses drugs/alcohol, or other terrible factors that the BS did. In these cases, I can UNDERSTAND WHY a WS would elect to cheat. The decision to cheat is NOT RIGHT NOR GOOD, but cheating while in a terrible marriage as some form of coping mechanism is at least UNDERSTANDABLE. 

Why not just divorce instead of putting up with a bad situation? Again, I agree that divorce is preferred. However, I can understand a person NOT DIVORCING because of kids and finances. It's pretty obvious why people choose to cheat, but not divorce. Again, I know it's wrong and is a terrible decision to make. But to proclaim on here how you can't figure out why someone would choose to cheat is missing a huge part of equation.


----------



## Thor (Oct 31, 2011)

There are the marriage vows and there are the state's laws. Our vows say we promise "To have and to hold", which means we promise to have sex and to physically comfort our spouse. We also promise to "Forsake all others", which is an expansive exclusivity which includes but is not limited to sexual and emotional fidelity.

Yet the laws in most places do not recognize a general expectation or right to sex within a marriage, nor do the laws recognize sexlessness nor infidelity as factors in a divorce settlement.

Under the law then, one is welcome to deny a spouse sex, and one has no legal beef when the spouse then goes out and cheats. Yet one has every moral right to expect sex within the marriage and to expect sexual and emotional fidelity.


----------



## Squeakr (May 1, 2013)

russell28 said:


> My blow up doll is interested in your straw man.. I think they'll make a cute couple. My blow up doll needs sex to live, but doesn't need food. Go figure.


No, she only needs air to live, but lives for sex. I think my straw man would burst her.... bubble.


:rofl:


----------



## russell28 (Apr 17, 2013)

Thread derailed complete.


----------



## LongWalk (Apr 4, 2013)

Squeakr said:


> Sorry but some of the arcane analogies being thrown around here are nothing more than straw man arguments. It makes no sense to compare someone being starved to someone that is being refused sex. They are not even in the same league or fair comparisons, as have been pointed out one can live a long and happy life without sex, but can't live without food, air, or water.


:scratchhead: What is happy about a long life without sex? Sounds like a recipe for misery and bitterness.

What people expect from marriage:

1) children
2) a partner in raising them
3) a sex life with an exclusive sex partner
4) a economic partner
5) a friend
6) an end to loneliness
7) help in sickness
8) affirmation of worth

None of these desired aims are guaranteed by marriage vows. A prenup will not assure them either. You cannot claim damages or compensation for any of them in the event of divorce.


----------



## Q tip (Apr 15, 2014)

Allen_A said:


> It would be STUPID.
> 
> I have said this many times before.
> 
> ...


:iagree:

Keep in mind to understand does not justify...


----------



## Squeakr (May 1, 2013)

LongWalk said:


> :scratchhead: What is happy about a long life without sex? Sounds like a recipe for misery and bitterness.
> 
> What people expect from marriage:
> 
> ...


Actually in my state one can still sue for damages and win compensation when item 3 is broken, and this is true in an additional 5-6 more states than mine, so some states still guarantee this with marriages. Also just because sex is a mainstay in most lives lots of religious leaders, extreme loners, and handicapped/ special needs people would disagree with your statement that life without sex is nothing more than bitterness and misery, as to some never knowing it not desiring it doesn't seem to limit their abilities, capabilities, and ideals of happy lives. 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Allen_A (Nov 18, 2013)

Q tip said:


> :iagree:
> 
> Keep in mind to understand does not justify...


You can call it whatever you want.

Describing how you feel about your sex starved marriage within the same paragraph as infidelity is ridiculous.

Comparing infidelity with sexual neglect is rather silly, given that many affairs involve sexual neglect as well.

You neglect your spouse sexually when you cheat on them, so you really have no business taking shots at your asexual spouse when you are frolicking around with trailer trash cheaters.

Taking any part of your marriage outside the marriage necessitates neglect. So, you feel neglected, and in response aggravate neglect back?

What is this... kindergarten justice?


----------



## Rugby (Dec 21, 2013)

Allen_A said:


> I would challenge your analogy of sex and food as inaccurate.
> 
> Sorry, but you can survive without sex in your life, you can't sustain a life without food.
> 
> ...


With all due respect to you and your personal history with the issue of infidelity, your responses clearly evidence that you have no educational background or foundation in either physiology or evolutionary biology. To claim that the desire to eat is more innate or powerful than the desire for sex is misguided and frankly wrong. Our most primal urges originate in the center of our brain and are instinctual. Inaddition, the degree to which one person desires food, sex, alcohol, drugs, etc is unique to each person. Drug addicts will starve to get a drug fix. Addictive gamers will play video games in lieu of eating or sleeping until they literally keel over and die. Infidelity or the related desire for sex is no different and occurs in the same primal part of the brain. To suggest that just because you can control your desire for sex and associate such a high moral value to fidelity does not mean that your conclusions are correct. They certainly have no basis in science. Primal desires are powerful and function similarly to addiction. You most certainly have personal weaknesses and likely have an inherent predisposition for addiction to something. Obviously sex is not it for you, but you are not immune or infallible. If you can't muster even a smidge of understanding, at least do your homework. I know Internet message boards are not academic, but for someone as passionate and absolute as you, you are badly lacking in basic kowledge. My suggestion is to spend less time here pontificating and more time reading published sources of good information. It might actually help you understand why some of the bad things like infidelity occur. It is infinitely more complex than just a lack of morals. If that were true, good people raised by good parents with good morals would not cheat. Very powerful mechanisms rooted in evolutionary biology are the root cause. I agree that it is immoral, but clearly preaching morality in the absence of good information rooted in science is a failing strategy.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Emptyshelldad (Apr 29, 2013)

Squeakr said:


> Actually in my state one can still sue for damages and win compensation when item 3 is broken, and this is true in an additional 5-6 more states than mine, so some states still guarantee this with marriages. Also just because sex is a mainstay in most lives lots of religious leaders, extreme loners, and handicapped/ special needs people would disagree with your statement that life without sex is nothing more than bitterness and misery, as to some never knowing it not desiring it doesn't seem to limit their abilities, capabilities, and ideals of happy lives.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_



Wow.....are we really entertaining the idea that many people could get along without sex in their lives. Because it talks exclusively in the bible about withholding sex is death the marriage and it is priming a partner for an affair. And that's the bible......a book by many standards that is highly judgmental. 

So I love that we are all discussing this without resorting to childish name calling etc that happens so often on other threads. With the possible exception of Russell and his "thread derail complete". 

Let's keep the dialogue open and flowing because we have nothing to lose and everything to learn.


----------



## Emptyshelldad (Apr 29, 2013)

Rugby said:


> With all due respect to you and your personal history with the issue of infidelity, your responses clearly evidence that you have no educational background or foundation in either physiology or evolutionary biology. To claim that the desire to eat is more innate or powerful than the desire for sex is misguided and frankly wrong. Our most primal urges originate in the center of our brain and are instinctual. Inaddition, the degree to which one person desires food, sex, alcohol, drugs, etc is unique to each person. Drug addicts will starve to get a drug fix. Addictive gamers will play video games in lieu of eating or sleeping until they literally keel over and die. Infidelity or the related desire for sex is no different and occurs in the same primal part of the brain. To suggest that just because you can control your desire for sex and associate such a high moral value to fidelity does not mean that your conclusions are correct. They certainly have no basis in science. Primal desires are powerful and function similarly to addiction. You most certainly have personal weaknesses and likely have an inherent predisposition for addiction to something. Obviously sex is not it for you, but you are not immune or infallible. If you can't muster even a smidge of understanding, at least do your homework. I know Internet message boards are not academic, but for someone as passionate and absolute as you, you are badly lacking in basic kowledge. My suggestion is to spend less time here pontificating and more time reading published sources of good information. It might actually help you understand why some of the bad things like infidelity occur. It is infinitely more complex than just a lack of morals. If that were true, good people raised by good parents with good morals would not cheat. Very powerful mechanisms rooted in evolutionary biology are the root cause. I agree that it is immoral, but clearly preaching morality in the absence of good information rooted in science is a failing strategy.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_



I agree with most of this. There is a drive for sex and starving that is priming your relationship for infidelity or divorce. Neither of which most (outside of Allen A perhaps) would try to deny are very painful experiences. 

I don't buy for one second that if a spouse came home and said "don't worry I didn't cheat but here are the divorce papers and custody proposal with my lawyers contact information. ". That the other spouse would be just fine.....they'd be devastated. And especially of they followed up with, "by the way, just so I'm honest, I'm gonna go now and have wild passion filled sex with a guy or girl from my work. I'll be at the hotel grove on main if you need me, call". 

No one is going to be sitting there with a little checklist saying " well, I really can't be upset because she did 
A). Tell me first that she would be having sex, so no dishonesty or deception.

B). She said we are getting a divorce and handed me papers, 

so I feel totally fine and secure with the fact that she is choosing another partner over me. 

It's a major blow to the ego, and that is usually what hurts the most. Hence why bs spend so much time agonizing over what the ow/om has to offer that they don't. 

I've known many whose spouses just ended the marriage over something and then went with someone else and it always hurt the spouse that was on the receiving end of the divorce papers.


----------



## Squeakr (May 1, 2013)

Emptyshelldad said:


> Wow.....are we really entertaining the idea that many people could get along without sex in their lives. Because it talks exclusively in the bible about withholding sex is death the marriage and it is priming a partner for an affair. And that's the bible......a book by many standards that is highly judgmental.
> 
> So I love that we are all discussing this without resorting to childish name calling etc that happens so often on other threads. With the possible exception of Russell and his "thread derail complete".
> 
> Let's keep the dialogue open and flowing because we have nothing to lose and everything to learn.


I was not referring to sex in marriage specifically (I do agree that it is expected in that union), just that one can live a long and healthy, happy life without sex but one cannot live without food. If we are going to quote the bible then we are also limiting the discussion and biasing it as well as there are many different versions and beliefs regarding just the bible (which in my religion really says that sex is supposed to be for procreation entirely) and this would leave out several other viable religions in the discussion. We have several religious figures, be it nuns, priests, monks, etc that take vows of celibacy and live full, rich, happy lives without sex but couldn't do the same with necessities such as air, water, and food.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Squeakr (May 1, 2013)

Emptyshelldad said:


> I agree with most of this. There is a drive for sex and starving that is priming your relationship for infidelity or divorce. Neither of which most (outside of Allen A perhaps) would try to deny are very painful experiences.
> 
> I don't buy for one second that if a spouse came home and said "don't worry I didn't cheat but here are the divorce papers and custody proposal with my lawyers contact information. ". That the other spouse would be just fine.....they'd be devastated. And especially of they followed up with, "by the way, just so I'm honest, I'm gonna go now and have wild passion filled sex with a guy or girl from my work. I'll be at the hotel grove on main if you need me, call".
> 
> ...


No one is insinuating that the spouse would be "fine" with the divorce because the other spouse didn't cheat. We all mourn the loss of our marriage that we invested and cared about but with infidelity being introduced there is another level of pain and hurt that exists in addition to that of the ending of the marriage. At least with the divorce without infidelity, the spouse can maintain their dignity and know that their spouse no longer has love or care for them generally, rather than lose their self esteem and feel like a failure and possibly be judged by their friends as somehow inadequate, broken, or a root cause of the error (as generally their is a smear campaign that goes along with the infidelity to justify it). It is like everyone that breaks their leg have pain but those that also break their ankle have the extra pain associated with the extra break and therefor it hurts worse.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## LongWalk (Apr 4, 2013)

Squeakr said:


> Actually in my state one can still sue for damages and win compensation when item 3 is broken, and this is true in an additional 5-6 more states than mine, so some states still guarantee this with marriages. Also just because sex is a mainstay in most lives lots of religious leaders, extreme loners, and handicapped/ special needs people would disagree with your statement that life without sex is nothing more than bitterness and misery, as to some never knowing it not desiring it doesn't seem to limit their abilities, capabilities, and ideals of happy lives.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


True, adultery is still on the books in a few places. But is being phased out and it costs more money to file, claiming alienation of affection. So what I wrote holds for most places.

Sex's importance. You are right that sexless lives are also worthwhile. But for people who are healthy and who desire sex, not getting it can be hellishly frustrating.


----------



## LongWalk (Apr 4, 2013)

Emptyshelldad said:


> I agree with most of this. There is a drive for sex and starving that is priming your relationship for infidelity or divorce. Neither of which most (outside of Allen A perhaps) would try to deny are very painful experiences.
> 
> I don't buy for one second that if a spouse came home and said "don't worry I didn't cheat but here are the divorce papers and custody proposal with my lawyers contact information. ". That the other spouse would be just fine.....they'd be devastated. And especially of they followed up with, "by the way, just so I'm honest, I'm gonna go now and have wild passion filled sex with a guy or girl from my work. I'll be at the hotel grove on main if you need me, call".
> 
> ...


This part of the reason that divorce itself was unacceptable until relatively recently.


----------



## Allen_A (Nov 18, 2013)

Rugby said:


> With all due respect to you and your personal history with the issue of infidelity, your responses clearly evidence that you have no educational background or foundation in either physiology or evolutionary biology. To claim that the desire to eat is more innate or powerful than the desire for sex is misguided and frankly wrong. Our most primal urges originate in the center of our brain and are instinctual.


:rofl:

You don't need sex to survive guys. lol

Grow up.


----------



## russell28 (Apr 17, 2013)

Allen_A said:


> :rofl:
> 
> You don't need sex to survive guys. lol
> 
> Grow up.


I need sex more than food. If I went on the tv show 'naked and afraid', I wouldn't be looking to the trees for melons to survive.. My female partner would be trying to make traps and gather berries, and I'd be too busy staring at her behind to focus on building shelter. Basically I would die. If I'm lucky they'd rush me off the show to a local brothel in time to save me.


----------



## Allen_A (Nov 18, 2013)

russell28 said:


> I need sex more than food. If I went on the tv show 'naked and afraid', I wouldn't be looking to the trees for melons to survive.. My female partner would be trying to make traps and gather berries, and I'd be too busy staring at her behind to focus on building shelter. Basically I would die. If I'm lucky they'd rush me off the show to a local brothel in time to save me.


As I said before.

You do NOT need sex to survive.

You can LIVE without sex.

You cannot LIVE without food.

Anyone who argues otherwise (in a serious context) needs to grow up.

I DO sympathize with people in a sexless marriage. I get it.

BUT... anyone who chooses (and it is a choice) to resort to behavior as horribly toxic as infidelity to resolve that problem has LOST ALL MY SYMPATHY at that point. They get NONE if infidelity is your resolution strategy of choice.

A sexless marriage is a legitimate complaint. But resorting to infidelity in reaction to that problem is such an offensive response it overshadows your complaints by a landslide.

Sorry, but if you decide to dumpster jockey your way into sexual gratification I write you off then and there.

No sympathy.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

Yes, I CAN live without sex (and did for much of my first marriage). I just wouldn't WANT to LIVE without it! For me that would be a very unhappy existence, although I did (and would if necessary, again) try to compensate in other ways. However, all those alternatives simply don't remove the desire for sex and an intimate connection.


----------



## LongWalk (Apr 4, 2013)

You may be wrong, Allen. The guy who had his arm trapped by a boulder in desert canyon and had to cut it off with a pocket knife may have jerked off before he finally found a solution. Men are really into sex. Also, people in Soviet gulags and Nazi concentration camps used to **** between barbed wired even thought they needed all their energy to survive.

Pregnancy then meant death. 

If you told a teenage boy that he could lose his virginity to the girl in school that he was secretly in love with if he could skip eating for two days, he might do it, assuming of course that this promise had credibility. I guess if got a kiss and a grope at the end of each day of fasting, his will would grow.

Cheating is a form of dishonesty. The question is does any form of dishonesty or betrayal within a marriage give a spouse justification to be an adulterer?

EmptyShellDad,

Did you ever discuss ethics with your ex? I suspect that she respects you a lot for being a thinking man. Your crafted limbo reconciliation is something that she never conceived being her fate.


----------



## Thor (Oct 31, 2011)

Sexlessness causes mental health and physical health problems. While one may not die in a week of sexlessness, one may die years early due to sexlessness.


----------



## WorkingOnMe (Mar 17, 2012)

Cheating on a withholding spouse is equivalent to a revenge affair.


----------



## Squeakr (May 1, 2013)

Thor said:


> Sexlessness causes mental health and physical health problems. While one may not die in a week of sexlessness, one may die years early due to sexlessness.


Any actual scientific research to back that statement up? Lots of men and women practice celibacy and live long lives. 

According to your theory would the following not hold true then:

Mother Teresa could have lived to be 100 instead of dying at 87 had she actually engaged in sex from time to time, right??? 

Would it not hold true then that the more sex one had the healthier they would be as well. John Holmes and Freddy Mercury died to young then as per their libidos, correct?

Heck Steven Hawking could be even smarter and more mentally acute if he was more physically adept in sex right??


----------



## russell28 (Apr 17, 2013)

I need someone to define sexlessness now.. Does a blow up doll count as sex? 

Does anyone really know if that Hawkings guy isn't in the wheelchair because he never had sex? That might be the cause of his physical issues... perhaps if he'd get a good BJ, he'd be walking fine.

I also want documented proof that Mother Theresa never had sex.

Going to get popcorn, brb..


----------



## LongWalk (Apr 4, 2013)

Does she have a credit card and Facebook profile?


----------



## Thor (Oct 31, 2011)

There are stories all the time in the news about studies showing the positive physical and mental health benefits of sex.

A quick internet search on "health benefits of sex" turned up these links amongst many others.

10 Surprising Health Benefits of Sex

Health Benefits of Sex - Surprising Benefits of Sex for Women - Woman's Day

17 Sexy Excuses to Hop Into Bed | Women's Health Magazine

The Health Benefits of Sex | Video - ABC News


----------



## Squeakr (May 1, 2013)

Thor said:


> There are stories all the time in the news about studies showing the positive physical and mental health benefits of sex.
> 
> A quick internet search on "health benefits of sex" turned up these links amongst many others.
> 
> ...


A benefit is a positive that i not guaranteed. Not a one of these articles prove or back your claim. They all refer to how it "can" or "may" increase or make your health benefit, to which I agree, but no where in there does it say that abstaining will definitely make your health worse, which is exactly what your original claim was. These articles, and none of them are really researched, as no statistics were given which would happen if they were researched and tested, just that people whom do this "may" or "can" have lower instances of some health issue. 

Your claim was that "_Sexlessness *causes* mental health and physical health problems. While one may not die in a week of sexlessness, one may die years early due to sexlessness._" These statements were not supported in any of these articles. Just because the article says something like sex may help to create a prostate that is healthy and free of cancer, doesn't mean that it is saying, men that abstain from sex *will *have unhealthy and cancer prone prostates.


----------



## Thor (Oct 31, 2011)

I left out the Oprah link. Depression can be caused by sexlessness. Depression can lead to suicide.

One of those articles discusses heart health and immune system health being bolstered by sex. Thus the sexless person will not have those benefits and may die younger as a result.

And no, sexlessness will not definitively cause one specific man to develop prostate cancer, but statistically there will be more cases of it.

Not every smoker gets lung cancer, but you'd be a fool to argue that smoking doesn't hurt health compared to not smoking.


----------



## Allen_A (Nov 18, 2013)

None of these arguments conclusively PROVE that you MUST have sex to SURVIVE. Sorry, they don't.

All your evidence proves is that there is a strong drive to HAVE sex, and that people will RISK a LOT to get it.

Do you need sex to THRIVE? Your evidence is a strong indicator of that yes.

Sorry, but comparing the need for sex and the need for food is ridiculous.

_You CAN starve a man to death, you can't CELIBATE a man to death._. lol

He wont die. He certainly won't be happy about it, but he won't DIE, sorry.


----------



## Squeakr (May 1, 2013)

Thor said:


> I left out the Oprah link. Depression can be caused by sexlessness. Depression can lead to suicide.
> 
> One of those articles discusses heart health and immune system health being bolstered by sex. Thus the sexless person will not have those benefits and may die younger as a result.
> 
> ...


Once again straw man arguments. As I looked at all the articles, yes there are health benefits that "may" or "can" occur and bolster health benefits, but there is no guarantee or even promise that this will happen. So one can possibly bolster their health through sex, but I could find the same claims made for running, biking, weight lifting, and other exertionary exercises being substituted for sex, and this goes for depression as well (heck just going outside and getting sunshine can help as it helps the body produce vitamins that are necessary for good health and staves off bad health and lots of these same effects can be seen in certain drug usage as well so would we recommend people take them up as well?), but doing none of these will guarantee good health, just as not doing them will not guarantee that one will have bad health either.

As to your claims about cancer, I would like to see a poll/study done of those that abstained from sex and those those that engaged in sex and see if the results will back your new claim that more cases will exist in those that abstain (I can bet your claims will once again be wrong, as cancer is not directly linked solely to sex as diet, exercise, and other healthful lifestyle elements will help offset just as much and possibly even more who really knows??).

I will finally agree with one of your claims and that would be about smoking. Not all will see the harmful effects, but as a general rule your claims are correct here that smoking is more harmful to health when compared to not smoking, but then the same can be said for most things, like alcohol.


----------



## Thor (Oct 31, 2011)

Squeakr said:


> Once again straw man arguments. As I looked at all the articles, yes there are health benefits that "may" or "can" occur and bolster health benefits, but there is no guarantee or even promise that this will happen. So one can possibly bolster their health through sex, but I could find the same claims made for running, biking, weight lifting, and other exertionary exercises being substituted for sex, and this goes for depression as well (heck just going outside and getting sunshine can help as it helps the body produce vitamins that are necessary for good health and staves off bad health and lots of these same effects can be seen in certain drug usage as well so would we recommend people take them up as well?), but doing none of these will guarantee good health, just as not doing them will not guarantee that one will have bad health either.
> 
> As to your claims about cancer, I would like to see a poll/study done of those that abstained from sex and those those that engaged in sex and see if the results will back your new claim that more cases will exist in those that abstain (I can bet your claims will once again be wrong, as cancer is not directly linked solely to sex as diet, exercise, and other healthful lifestyle elements will help offset just as much and possibly even more who really knows??).
> 
> I will finally agree with one of your claims and that would be about smoking. Not all will see the harmful effects, but as a general rule your claims are correct here that smoking is more harmful to health when compared to not smoking, but then the same can be said for most things, like alcohol.


So your position is that the benefits of greater heart health, stronger immune systems, and better mental health will have no impact on lifespan.


----------



## Allen_A (Nov 18, 2013)

This whole thread belongs in the sex and marriage forum, this has nothing to do with infidelity.

The whole idea of discussing infidelity with a sexless marriage is ridiculous.

It would take a real moron to have sexless marriage -> lead to -> infidelity. Only a moron would invite infidelity into their marriage to resolve a sexless marriage problem.

To use this silly food analogy :

_Resorting to infidelity to resolve your sexless marriage is akin to setting your home ablaze and roasting marshmallows because you are hungry.
_
It does not compute. lol


----------



## Squeakr (May 1, 2013)

Thor said:


> So your position is that the benefits of greater heart health, stronger immune systems, and better mental health will have no impact on lifespan.


Once again with the straw man arguments. Can you even form a coherent and well supported hypothesis? I have never said nor insinuated your current claim in any of my posts, in fact I have said exactly the opposite. What I have said repeatedly is that there is no proven and guaranteed correlation between the benefits that you are proposing and sex. Yes those benefits will impact lifespan in a healthy individual and lifestyle, but there is no guarantee that such individual having had sex or abstaining from sex will guarantee those benefits or that they have a greater propensity for them and thus a longer and healthier lifestyle (as I said before maybe they replaced sex with another exercise of their choosing)?

You have effectively straw man argued your way out of your original claim that sexlessness causes mental and physical health issues and one will die sooner without having sex all the while;e never proving your statement like originally asked to. I can effectively find several articles about the health benefits of running (which would be lots of the same benefits), but that wont support the theory that "not running causes one to have mental and physical health problems and to die sooner."


----------



## Thor (Oct 31, 2011)

Squeakr said:


> Once again with the straw man arguments. Can you even form a coherent and well supported hypothesis? I have never said nor insinuated your current claim in any of my posts, in fact I have said exactly the opposite. What I have said repeatedly is that there is no proven and guaranteed correlation between the benefits that you are proposing and sex. Yes those benefits will impact lifespan in a healthy individual and lifestyle, but there is no guarantee that such individual having had sex or abstaining from sex will guarantee those benefits or that they have a greater propensity for them and thus a longer and healthier lifestyle (as I said before maybe they replaced sex with another exercise of their choosing)?
> 
> You have effectively straw man argued your way out of your original claim that sexlessness causes mental and physical health issues and one will die sooner without having sex all the while;e never proving your statement like originally asked to. I can effectively find several articles about the health benefits of running (which would be lots of the same benefits), but that wont support the theory that "not running causes one to have mental and physical health problems and to die sooner."


And there is zero proof that any specific person will die of lung cancer from smoking. But we know that one behavior will lead to less healthful effects in the body while the opposite behavior will lead to a more healthful body. Whether it is smoking or abstaining from sex, there are negative health effects.

So the person living a sexless marriage will suffer generally negative health effects due to the sexlessness, compared to if he/she were in a good marriage with good frequent sex.

A researcher would be able to put numbers and risk factors to the problem and come up with an average or expected amount of reduction in lifespan due to sexlessness.

No, sexlessness will not kill as certainly as taking away food, water, and oxygen. I concede that point. But sex is necessary for a full and healthy life.


----------



## Allen_A (Nov 18, 2013)

WorkingOnMe said:


> Cheating on a withholding spouse is equivalent to a revenge affair.


THIS is probably the most RIDICULOUS thing said in this thread thus far.

Infidelity is TOXIC to your entire HOME. A sexless marriage is not TOXIC, sorry.


----------



## Plan 9 from OS (Jul 13, 2012)

Allen_A said:


> THIS is probably the most RIDICULOUS thing said in this thread thus far.
> 
> Infidelity is TOXIC to your entire HOME. A sexless marriage is not TOXIC, sorry.


ANYTHING that leads to the end of a marriage is ultimately toxic to the entire home. The toxic act can be spousal abuse, infidelity, drug/alcohol abuse or gross neglect. So yes, I believe that if a spouse does something pretty heinous to you, if you stayed married and cheated as a reaction to the first act - it can be an act of revenge. It can also be a coping mechanism.


----------



## maincourse99 (Aug 15, 2012)

_To claim that the desire to eat is more innate or powerful than the desire for sex is misguided and frankly wrong. _

The point he was making is that you can live, continue to breathe, think and move without sex. Try floating around on a raft in the Atlantic for a month or two and see which desire is stronger.


----------



## Squeakr (May 1, 2013)

Thor said:


> And there is zero proof that any specific person will die of lung cancer from smoking. But we know that one behavior will lead to less healthful effects in the body while the opposite behavior will lead to a more healthful body. Whether it is smoking or abstaining from sex, there are negative health effects.
> 
> So the person living a sexless marriage will suffer generally negative health effects due to the sexlessness, compared to if he/she were in a good marriage with good frequent sex.
> 
> ...


More phallacies and straw man arguments. If it was so easy for a researcher to do this, how come you haven't provided this proof? It doesn't exist that is why!!! There are no negative effects to abstaining. You are stating that by abstaining you are eliminating years from your lifespan. That is not true. You are just not possibly extending your life. Since your articles show that there may/ can be benefits received, it means that it may/ can be possible to extend someone's life due to sex. That doesn't show, prove, or correlate with abstaining as causing one to die sooner. That would mean that abstaining reduces years, but all abstaining does is keep you at neutral.

Lets break it down grade school type and look at it as if graphed on a number line. Life without sex puts you at 0 (this would be the baseline as we don't have sex for many of the first years of our life). Life with sex may/ can add something to it, so you could be at anything from 0 to greater than 0 (as no increase is guaranteed but is quite possible). By your estimate life would be at 0, life without sex at less than 0, and life with sex at greater than 0 (but this can't be as life and life without sex are the same thing). Since there are only two options (no sex or sex), there can only be two possibilities and not 3 like in your proposal. 

Smoking on the same number line would be life without smoking would be 0 and life with smoking would be 0 or less than 0 (as we don't know for a fact that it will shorten a life but that it can possibly as every body is different and it only does harm).


----------



## maincourse99 (Aug 15, 2012)

_I need sex more than food. If I went on the tv show 'naked and afraid', I wouldn't be looking to the trees for melons to survive.. My female partner would be trying to make traps and gather berries, and I'd be too busy staring at her behind to focus on building shelter. Basically I would die. If I'm lucky they'd rush me off the show to a local brothel in time to save me._

This is the craziest f*ing thing I've ever heard.:rofl::rofl:


----------



## maincourse99 (Aug 15, 2012)

_If you told a teenage boy that he could lose his virginity to the girl in school that he was secretly in love with if he could skip eating for two days, he might do it_

Two days? Definitely. Up it to 30, most likely not.


----------



## Allen_A (Nov 18, 2013)

Plan 9 from OS said:


> ANYTHING that leads to the end of a marriage is ultimately toxic to the entire home. The toxic act can be spousal abuse, infidelity, drug/alcohol abuse or gross neglect. So yes, I believe that if a spouse does something pretty heinous to you, if you stayed married and cheated as a reaction to the first act - it can be an act of revenge. It can also be a coping mechanism.


No, that's ridiculous.

Just because a marriage fails, does not mean something toxic lead it there.

You guys need to get a grip.


----------



## Allen_A (Nov 18, 2013)

maincourse99 said:


> _To claim that the desire to eat is more innate or powerful than the desire for sex is misguided and frankly wrong. _
> 
> The point he was making is that you can live, continue to breathe, think and move without sex. Try floating around on a raft in the Atlantic for a month or two and see which desire is stronger.


BOOM!

:iagree:


----------



## maincourse99 (Aug 15, 2012)

_So your position is that the benefits of greater heart health, stronger immune systems, and better mental health will have no impact on lifespan_

Yes the do, but the point is, if you do not eat you WILL be DEAD within months. Not having sex will not kill you in a couple of months. Believe me I know :ezpi_wink1:


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

If you took money, possessions and property out of the equation, if there was nothing to divide, if no one was financially, morally, harmed, if God's laws or man's laws, or any other laws were not there and the only thing left was just the question of how two people who are supposed to be devoted to loving each other interact, what is the answer to this question? What is the best way to proceed when faced with the choice to be unfaithful?

For me, when I take all other things out of the equation, and only consider each other's feelings, who we are supposed to love, which part of that is showing respect, the answer is simple. We openly tell our spouse we are unhappy and ready to either work hard on restoring a healthy relationship or ending it. 

I think anything other than that is simply due to constraints other than simple love. 

This is simply speaking on a lack of sex in the marriage, and no other factors, which is totally impossible. It's not sensible to believe a lack of sex is just due to asexuality. Those folks have to be such a small percentile of the total population, it's highly unlikely to cause much of an influence on a general consensus. So, in my opinion, it's a ridiculous notion.


----------



## maincourse99 (Aug 15, 2012)

_But sex is necessary for a full and healthy life._

Maybe for some people, not for everyone.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

Allen_A said:


> A sexless marriage is not TOXIC, sorry.


THIS is probably the most RIDICULOUS thing said in this thread thus far. 

It's certainly toxic if one of the partners isn't happy about it!


----------



## Allen_A (Nov 18, 2013)

> _But sex is necessary for a full and healthy life._


You go to a convent and try to sell that story. lol

LOTS of people spend their entire lives not having sex.

You guys are DELUDED if you think sex is necessary to survive.


----------



## Allen_A (Nov 18, 2013)

Married but Happy said:


> It's certainly toxic if one of the partners isn't happy about it!


Just because someone in a marriage is unhappy it does NOT follow that the marriage is TOXIC. lol

Unhappy does NOT equate to TOXIC. lol

You guys rationalizing is just silly at this point.

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


----------



## Squeakr (May 1, 2013)

Allen_A said:


> You go to a convent and try to sell that story. lol
> 
> LOTS of people spend their entire lives not having sex.
> 
> You guys are DELUDED if you think sex is necessary to survive.


:iagree: This is what I have been trying to get across. It definitely can enrich and make life better, and yes the species as a whole needs to procreate (i.e. have sex) to survive (meaning to continue on as a species), but it is not something the individual needs to live a life. Several religious figures live rich full lives with their love shown in many different ways that just through the genitalia and wouldn't want their lives to be any other way.


Heck tell it to Dr. Sheldon Cooper that you need to have sex to live. I bet Dr. Amy Farrah Fowler would agree at times, but he doesn't! BAZINGA!!!

(Okay bad Big Bang Theory reference for those unaware)


----------



## Plan 9 from OS (Jul 13, 2012)

Allen_A said:


> No, that's ridiculous.
> 
> Just because a marriage fails, does not mean something toxic lead it there.
> 
> You guys need to get a grip.


No, you aren't thinking about this clearly enough. Ideally, a family will have two loving parents who are committed to each other. Many families start off like this, so this is the initial state. All the decisions made by the spouses and the life events experienced will either improve the marriage and family, harm it or be neutral. Anything that harms it is hurtful. It will be either an accute problem or a chronic problem. Anything harmful will contribute to the quality of the family. If enough harmful events occur and the decision is made to divorce, then it will harm the family. If a chronic situation is allowed to fester, and the spouses don't divorce, that too will be toxic to the family. You don't think an alcoholic parent degrades the quality of the family environment? How about a gambling addict? 

I think it's silly to think of infidelity separate and distinct from the quality of the marriage when it comes to all cases. Many times we see what appears to be a BS who was truly screwed over thru no fault of his or her own. But many times we also see a BS who has done significant damage to the marriage prior to any cheating occurring.


----------



## WorkingOnMe (Mar 17, 2012)

Allen_A said:


> THIS is probably the most RIDICULOUS thing said in this thread thus far.
> 
> 
> 
> Infidelity is TOXIC to your entire HOME. A sexless marriage is not TOXIC, sorry.



Nope. You're wrong. And no amount of avoiding the subject of the article will change that. Sorry.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

Allen_A said:


> Just because someone in a marriage is unhappy it does NOT follow that the marriage is TOXIC. lol
> 
> Unhappy does NOT equate to TOXIC. lol
> 
> You guys rationalizing is just silly at this point.


It does not _necessarily _equate (but often does), and my first (sexless) marriage was both unhappy and toxic. That's not rationalization, that's fact.


----------



## Plan 9 from OS (Jul 13, 2012)

Why are we discussing whether people can be happy living celibate lives? Quick answer: they can if that is what they CHOOSE! Last time I checked the VAST MAJORITY of married people want to have sex with their spouses. Therefore, celibacy is NOT THEIR CHOICE.


----------



## Squeakr (May 1, 2013)

Plan 9 from OS said:


> No, you aren't thinking about this clearly enough. Ideally, a family will have two loving parents who are committed to each other. Many families start off like this, so this is the initial state. All the decisions made by the spouses and the life events experienced will either improve the marriage and family, harm it or be neutral. Anything that harms it is hurtful. It will be either an accute problem or a chronic problem. Anything harmful will contribute to the quality of the family. If enough harmful events occur and the decision is made to divorce, then it will harm the family. If a chronic situation is allowed to fester, and the spouses don't divorce, that too will be toxic to the family. You don't think an alcoholic parent degrades the quality of the family environment? How about a gambling addict?
> 
> I think it's silly to think of infidelity separate and distinct from the quality of the marriage when it comes to all cases. Many times we see what appears to be a BS who was truly screwed over thru no fault of his or her own. But many times we also see a BS who has done significant damage to the marriage prior to any cheating occurring.


Yes but you forgot the third option that you added the neutral. What if at some point everything just becomes neutral and the parents become complacent and decide that they are no longer in love and wish to end the marriage. In this case the marriage failed, but not necessarily due to a toxic action. It could just be due to the complacency and lack of love existent in the marriage. I knew a couple that this happened to and their divorce was amicable and affected the kids naught, as everyone knew it was not because of anything within the marriage, just an all around unhappiness. In this case the marriage failed but not due to anything toxic (the odd thing is that both of the parents were counselors/ social workers with Masters in their fields, so you would think that they if anyone would have been able to work it out).


----------



## WorkingOnMe (Mar 17, 2012)

Plan 9 from OS said:


> Why are we discussing whether people can be happy living celibate lives? Quick answer: they can if that is what they CHOOSE! Last time I checked the VAST MAJORITY of married people want to have sex with their spouses. Therefore, celibacy is NOT THEIR CHOICE.



They're arguing it because they don't have a good argument on the actual philosophical questions in the article. So they change the subject and attempt to discount anyone who doesn't 100% agree with their views. It's really a sad debate technique but what do you expect on an infidelity forum?


----------



## Squeakr (May 1, 2013)

WorkingOnMe said:


> Nope. You're wrong. And no amount of avoiding the subject of the article will change that. Sorry.


I think it depends on the nature of the sexless marriage. My inlaws were in a sexless marriage and were fine with it. The only reason that I know about this issue is that he had severely debilitating MS which later ended his life and made it so he couldn't function normally. His wife was there until the end and never strayed on him. A sad story but it is possible when both spouses are accepting of a certain situation.


----------



## Allen_A (Nov 18, 2013)

Married but Happy said:


> It does not _necessarily _equate (but often does), and my first (sexless) marriage was both unhappy and toxic. That's not rationalization, that's fact.


That's your OPINION, and your opinions are not facts.

You guys are just looking like drama queens now.

1. Sexlessness does not result in death, sorry. lol
2. Sexlessness in a marriage does not equate to a toxic marriage, sorry. lol

It is SAD when a couple cannot negotiate common ground with regards to sex, money, in laws, or any number of marital issues, but they do not equate with the destructive force of a myriad of individual acts that put people on the brink of suicide or death.

Alcoholism, drugs, gambling, infidelity, violence, suicide attempts.. THAT is a TOXIC home.

You guys aren't trying to KILL yourselves are you?

You guys need to get a grip.

Go look at the sexless marriage thread and then compare that to people posting about their spouse having affairs, you can easily identify how much more severe infidelity is as a marital problem.

I don't know anyone who KILLED themselves as a result of a sexless marriage. I HAVE read many cases of people betrayed by infidelity who offed themselves because they couldn't cope.


----------



## Plan 9 from OS (Jul 13, 2012)

Squeakr said:


> Yes but you forgot the third option that you added the neutral. What if at some point everything just becomes neutral and the parents become complacent and decide that they are no longer in love and wish to end the marriage. In this case the marriage failed, but not necessarily due to a toxic action. *It could just be due to the complacency* and lack of love existent in the marriage. I knew a couple that this happened to and their divorce was amicable and affected the kids naught, as everyone knew it was not because of anything within the marriage, just an all around unhappiness. In this case the marriage failed but not due to anything toxic (the odd thing is that both of the parents were counselors/ social workers with Masters in their fields, so you would think that they if anyone would have been able to work it out).


No. Neutral is neutral and has no bearing on the marriage. You're equating neutral to complacency. Complacency is a negative effect that is toxic. To further the poison analogy used earlier, not all poisons act the same. Some poisons like arsenic act quickly and will kill in short order. Other poisons act like alcohol and tobacco will work slowly until you die. Complacency is a nice, slow working poison that allows a marriage to degrade over time.


----------



## WorkingOnMe (Mar 17, 2012)

Squeakr said:


> I think it depends on the nature of the sexless marriage. My inlaws were in a sexless marriage and were fine with it. The only reason that I know about this issue is that he had severely debilitating MS which later ended his life and made it so he couldn't function normally. His wife was there until the end and never strayed on him. A sad story but it is possible when both spouses are accepting of a certain situation.


I didn't say sexless marriage. I said "withholder". That is a very specific type of sexless marriage. In the wedding vows, you each vow to be faithful. That means sex with each other. Sex with "one" person. Sex with "zero" breaks the vows the same as sex with "two", so I believe that a withholder is equivalent to a cheater.


----------



## WorkingOnMe (Mar 17, 2012)

Allen_A said:


> That's your OPINION, and your opinions are not facts.
> 
> You guys are just looking like drama queens now.
> 
> ...


It's funny how you say "you guys are just looking like drama queens" while yourself looking like a drama queen.


----------



## Allen_A (Nov 18, 2013)

WorkingOnMe said:


> I didn't say sexless marriage. I said "withholder". That is a very specific type of sexless marriage. In the wedding vows, you each vow to be faithful. That means sex with each other. Sex with "one" person. Sex with "zero" breaks the vows the same as sex with "two", so I believe that a withholder is equivalent to a cheater.


lol

You guys are losing credibility with every post :

withholding something from your spouse is NOT the same as

withholding something from your spouse and OFFERING that exact same thing (and more) to someone ELSE in SECRET. 

You guys will have no credibility left if you keep making these ridiculous arguments.


----------



## Allen_A (Nov 18, 2013)

WorkingOnMe said:


> It's funny how you say "you guys are just looking like drama queens" while yourself looking like a drama queen.


we aren't the one's claiming "i must have sex or I am gonna die." lol

I think you guys jumped the shark tank trying that stunt lol


----------



## WorkingOnMe (Mar 17, 2012)

Allen_A said:


> we aren't the one's claiming "i must have sex or I am gonna die." lol
> 
> 
> 
> I think you guys jumped the shark tank trying that stunt lol



You came onto this thread from the very beginning attempting to stop the conversation. Why are you here exactly? I haven't read your threads. Are you a withholder who was cheated on?


----------



## Allen_A (Nov 18, 2013)

Let's put this as an equation as an experiment.

Assuming your spouse is witholding sex from you being a -10 input. How much MORE or LESS problematic would it be if you discovered your spouse not ONLY witholding sex from YOU but was ALSO offering that in SPADES to someone else behind your back?

Would you be just as upset?

-10

Less?

- 5 (at least you know she's not a-sexual)

more?

-20 -100?

-1000?

Plug in a number.


----------



## WorkingOnMe (Mar 17, 2012)

Keep changing the subject Allen. Sad.


----------



## Allen_A (Nov 18, 2013)

WorkingOnMe said:


> Keep changing the subject Allen. Sad.


I am going to assume that means I have made my point.

1. People don't die from sex abstinence.
2. Infidelity is exponentially more traumatizing than a spouse withholding sex.


----------



## Squeakr (May 1, 2013)

WorkingOnMe said:


> I didn't say sexless marriage. I said "withholder". That is a very specific type of sexless marriage. In the wedding vows, you each vow to be faithful. That means sex with each other. Sex with "one" person. Sex with "zero" breaks the vows the same as sex with "two", so I believe that a withholder is equivalent to a cheater.


You might not have said it yourself, but what you quoted and stated was completely wrong directly states" sexless marriages were not toxic", so i replied on the term of sexless marriages and that quote context. I agree that if someone is withholding that this is a type of abuse and punishment, I don't personally equate and hold it to the standard and level of cheating but that is my view. No where in what I quoted (nor if the text you quoted) did it state "withholder" so I used the original terminology and am sorry if you are offended, but I can only read what is printed and not the minds of the poster as well.


----------



## Squeakr (May 1, 2013)

Plan 9 from OS said:


> No. Neutral is neutral and has no bearing on the marriage. You're equating neutral to complacency. Complacency is a negative effect that is toxic. To further the poison analogy used earlier, not all poisons act the same. Some poisons like arsenic act quickly and will kill in short order. Other poisons act like alcohol and tobacco will work slowly until you die. Complacency is a nice, slow working poison that allows a marriage to degrade over time.


So fine take the word complacency out of it and substitute neutral throughout as it doesn't change my point. The fact is if the spouses become too neutral and just decide jointly it is not what they want to remain married anymore, it is not always a toxic ending and effect on the family. You are just being obtuse and argumentative, because you have a different definition of complacency doesn't mean that my point is any less valid, as you knew what I meant. If two people fall out of love from no action or act of the other and the marriage isn't growing, faltering, or changing in any way and they decide to end it, it is not necessarily toxic is all I was stating.


----------



## Allen_A (Nov 18, 2013)

A withholder is not equivalent to a cheater :

a. the withholder is NOT offering sex to someone ELSE
b. the withholder is not LYING to you about it

Eveyrthing is on the table with a wihtholder, you know what you are dealing with, and there is no third party terrorizing your home, no deception, no depletion of household finances on gifts, hotel rooms, and business trips...

Sexlessness in most marriages stifles those marriages, infidelity TOXIFIES marriage.

Infidelity escalates problems to a much more severe level. It's like comparing a kitchen fire to a forest fire.

It's a ridiculous comparison.


----------



## WorkingOnMe (Mar 17, 2012)

Allen_A said:


> It's a ridiculous comparison.


Every time you dismiss other people's views this way, it makes you look small and it diminishes your argument. The first part of your post made me think, although I still don't agree with it. But this last sentence just makes me dismiss you entirely as beneath me. Try to make an argument and let it stand on its own two feet.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

Squeakr said:


> You might not have said it yourself, but what you quoted and stated was completely wrong directly states" sexless marriages were not toxic", so i replied on the term of sexless marriages and that quote context. I agree that if someone is withholding that this is a type of abuse and punishment, I don't personally equate and hold it to the standard and level of cheating but that is my view. No where in what I quoted (nor if the text you quoted) did it state "withholder" so I used the original terminology and am sorry if you are offended, but I can only read what is printed and not the minds of the poster as well.


Okay, I have a question. 

When does an inaction or action become abuse? I'm not playing a game here. I did a quick search and cannot find the distinction or definition. 

Please provide a link when you find it.

Personally, I thought, if withholding sex is abuse, there must be some way the person withholding is trying to control the actions of their spouse. In my opinion, that's the only way it can be considered abuse. 

If it is due to hormones, mental illness, physical inability to function, or a lack of knowledge, it is not abuse. It is hurtful and harmful to the love, respect and relationship between the two. 

Laws today provide easy access to divorce. Edit: In the U.S., anyway. 

I don't believe it is abuse, unless it is done with the intention of forcing a partner or spouse to conform to something or do something. 

I truly would like to understand this. It's not meant to incite a riot. 

How would anyone know the difference? What's odd for me is, if one spouse wants sex every day and the other does not, in general terms, it seems that could be abuse, if the request for more sex is not met. 

I don't think I understand this properly.


----------



## Allen_A (Nov 18, 2013)

To suggest that withholding sex is abuse is an INSULT to victims of actual abuse.


----------



## Squeakr (May 1, 2013)

2ntnuf said:


> Okay, I have a question.
> 
> When does an inaction or action become abuse? I'm not playing a game here. I did a quick search and cannot find the distinction or definition.
> 
> ...


I agree with your assessment of this. I don't think that their is a clear cut definition, but just that which applies to withholding which is defined as the action of taking something away from someone, which in this case is sex. Especially when it is done to elicit something from the spouse, be it an action or just to intentionally harm/ hurt them.

I agree that there is a fine line between what is considered a deliberate withholding meant to hurt and be malicious and that which happens due to an illness as stated. Generally those that are afflicted and withhold involuntarily, I would guess would be somewhat remorseful of their lack of engagement in sex with the spouse for their physical reason or they would be just unaware that they were doing it, such as in the case of Low T afflictions.

I think that one can generally tell when a spouse is withholding and just not in the mood. It also becomes more and more evident as time passes and nothing happens. 

Your questions I believe could be said the same about any abuse. If someone is complacent and doesn't seem interested in anything much, are they being mentally abusive to the other spouse as a form of punishment or are they just being complacent and unintentional in their action and words. 

These things are why, even though it may be clear and decisive in the definition of the law, in practice it takes a good lawyer to defend one way or the other to prove the intent, as that is where the real ideal lies. 

I know this really didn't answer your question, but it is the best I can do, as just like everything else here, we all have our distinct boundaries and ideals of what is or is not something and things like abuse are very gray. What I would consider abuse others may not, and then others may depending on the original intent that brought on the action.


----------



## Squeakr (May 1, 2013)

Allen_A said:


> To suggest that withholding sex is abuse is an INSULT to victims of actual abuse.


I don't agree. Would you say withholding love and affection from a child, for whatever reason, was not mental abuse and considering it as such is an insult to actual abuse victims??


----------



## Allen_A (Nov 18, 2013)

Squeakr said:


> I don't agree. Would you say withholding love and affection from a child, for whatever reason, was not mental abuse and considering it as such is an insult to actual abuse victims??


Withholding SEX from a spouse is not abuse no. I said withholding SEX. Let's keep this contained and on point. lol

Children NEED affection and love in order to grow up well-adjusted, OTHERWISE they perpetuate the same problems they experienced as children.

Comparing the nurturing necessary for children to thrive is not the same as sex adults MAY enjoy in a marriage. Apples and Oranges.

What about people who live a single life and don't date, are they all ABUSED because they aren't getting any? lol

I have a retired neighbor who lives alone, is HE abused because he's not getting laid?


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

There are different kinds of abuse, clearly, some more damaging than others, perhaps, but that also depends on the time frame and many other factors.

I consider withholding sex abusive, and it caused me damage which creates difficulties in having a fully normal relationship and I'm still dealing with some of the consequences decades later.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

Allen_A said:


> To suggest that withholding sex is abuse is an INSULT to victims of actual abuse.


Depending on intent, I agree. Any form of abuse is as emotionally and mentally harmful as the next. Physical abuse and verbal abuse are easily spotted. Emotional abuse takes time to see because it slowly breaks down the abused and is very insidious. 

However, I do believe that emotional abuse is only that, when it is done with the intent to force the spouse to do something they don't want to do. 

In the case of sex, it seems it could be abuse to force a partner to have more sex, rather than to withhold. In my mind, it's like rape.

When sex is withheld, it's time to talk openly and honestly with or without a counselor present, depending on the situation. It must be documented that needs are not being met, and the reason for those discussed, in my opinion, or abuse in that case, can be called into question. 

I believe that would be the same with emotional abuse. 

These are not based on anything, but my personal opinion.

Bottom line is, get a divorce, period. It does nothing, but abuse the other spouse, when infidelity comes into the marriage. Infidelity really needs to be added to the laws concerning abuse. 

If withholding sex is to be considered breaking a law, infidelity should as well. 

As someone else pointed out, and we can all read on this forum and many others, it's extremely harmful to a betrayed's psyche, their livelihood, their family, their children and their friendships.

This is not abuse? I beg to differ. 

I would be surprised, if a physically abused spouse, and a BS, were to not get very similar results under the same psychological testing.


----------



## Allen_A (Nov 18, 2013)

Abstinence from sex does not kill people guys, or women in convents would be keeling over in droves as we speak. lol

I still can't believe someone tried to make that argument, HERE of all places. lol


----------



## Allen_A (Nov 18, 2013)

2ntnuf said:


> In the case of sex, it seems it could be abuse to force a partner to have more sex, rather than to withhold. In my mind, it's like rape.


If you scan through the comments in the referenced article for this thread ONE commenter actually said there HAS been a law passed in 2006 that will consider pressure to have sex as statutory rape.

So, there you go.

As I said before, you cannot argue someone into having great sex with you. That is a MOOD KILLER.

These guys saying sex abstinence will kill you and that witholding sex is abuse are WAY off relative to that law. The guys making these ridiculous arguments like "I must have sex or I will die" are the ones who are borderline abusive, to my mind.

Stop arguing, and put on a Barry White CD. lol


----------



## Squeakr (May 1, 2013)

Allen_A said:


> Withholding SEX from a spouse is not abuse no. I said withholding SEX. Let's keep this contained and on point. lol
> 
> Children NEED affection and love in order to grow up well-adjusted, OTHERWISE they perpetuate the same problems they experienced as children.
> 
> ...


So in your mind it is not, but in my mind it is a form of mental abuse. It is using something to control the other and get the upper hand. I don't consider it physical abuse just because the act of sex is a physical action, but I do consider it mental and emotional abuse, which is why I asked about the child situation in your opinion. 

Bad parents will withhold their love in order to get the child to do things they would like, such as cleaning, good grades, etc. I see it the same in withholding Sex, it is done to give the spouse an edge and control them to do what they wish, whatever that might be emotionally, mentally, or physically.

People who don't date are not being withheld anything by anyone, so no abuse there (at least from that) or possible as they are singles, unless they are abusing themselves (which is another discussion)

I would say that your neighbor was not abused unless he was being forced to live that way by someone, in which case yes he is being abused. If he had a steady partner and they were withholding from him (no matter what it is) strictly for controlling purposes, then yes he is being abused.


----------



## Plan 9 from OS (Jul 13, 2012)

Squeakr said:


> So fine take the word complacency out of it and substitute neutral throughout as it doesn't change my point. The fact is if the spouses become too neutral and just decide jointly it is not what they want to remain married anymore, it is not always a toxic ending and effect on the family. You are just being obtuse and argumentative, because you have a different definition of complacency doesn't mean that my point is any less valid, as you knew what I meant. If two people fall out of love from no action or act of the other and the marriage isn't growing, faltering, or changing in any way and they decide to end it, it is not necessarily toxic is all I was stating.


I don't care what you call it, but if you become complacent, an inactive participant in your marriage or "neutral" to your spouse then it WILL negatively affect the marriage. So yes, it is a slow acting poison that can ruin your marriage. Your marriage is like a person. Feed it well and it will thrive. Starve or poison it and it will die. No doubt that we all can die from a whole slew of things. A car crash can kill you instantly. Alcoholism or smoking can take a few decades to do the job. If divorce is analogous to dying by unnatural means, then anything that cuts a life short is bad, right? So anything that cuts a marriage short (before one spouse passes away) is not desirable to a happy home. Complacency is a choice. It means that a person does not value their spouse highly enough to make him/her a priority. So your example where these two people just "drifted apart" is weak. The fact is that one or both of them did not care to see the marriage work. That is a choice.


----------



## Thor (Oct 31, 2011)

Squeakr said:


> More phallacies and straw man arguments. If it was so easy for a researcher to do this, how come you haven't provided this proof? It doesn't exist that is why!!! There are no negative effects to abstaining.


Those links I posted are from medical and psychological studies which say there *are* negative affects to a *sexless marriage*.

Voluntary abstention is different than involuntary sexless marriage. There is great psychological stress in the involuntary sexless marriage. This is the source of the physical harm to a person's body.


----------



## Plan 9 from OS (Jul 13, 2012)

Allen_A said:


> Abstinence from sex does not kill people guys, or women in convents would be keeling over in droves as we speak. lol
> 
> I still can't believe someone tried to make that argument, HERE of all places. lol


Again, we're talking within the context of a marriage. Why do you bring up the religious who specifically take vows of chastity? Maybe someone tried to argue the point that a lack of sex will physically kill you. I'm not sure who did that, but from what I've been reading, people are saying that sexless can (and many cases will) kill a marriage. I say that intentionally withholding sex to the point of making the marriage sexless is a form of abuse. It destroys the other person's self esteem and CAN psychologically damage a person to the point it can take years to cope with the emotional and mental trauma. It's naive to state that withholding sex within a marriage is a small thing.


----------



## Thor (Oct 31, 2011)

Allen_A said:


> Go look at the sexless marriage thread and then compare that to people posting about their spouse having affairs, you can easily identify how much more severe infidelity is as a marital problem.


I've never said sexless is as acutely severe as an affair. I also don't believe sexlessness justifies infidelity. But I do know from personal experience that sexlessness causes long term emotional turmoil, it is toxic to the marriage, and it affects the entire family environment.


----------



## Allen_A (Nov 18, 2013)

Squeakr said:


> So in your mind it is not, but in my mind it is a form of mental abuse. It is using something to control the other and get the upper hand. I don't consider it physical abuse just because the act of sex is a physical action, but I do consider it mental and emotional abuse, which is why I asked about the child situation in your opinion.


I think that's a bit of mind reading going on there.

If you tease, humiliate, goad, and denigrate your spouse AND withhold sex then ya, it's probably treading into abuse, but if you just dont' have sex with them that's not abuse no.

It really depends on how much you are waving it in their face.

Sorry, but I reserve abuse for serious trauma that you can't do much about.

You can LEAVE if you aren't getting your sexual needs met. You really aren't there chained to the floor like an animal.

I think abuse is far too powerful a term for this sort of thing. I would certainly use neglect to characterize withholding sex.

I don't doubt SOME EXTREEME cases of abuse do involve withholding sex, particularly in cases of infidelity. But that's like the rare few.

Simply withholding sex no it's not abuse, there really needs to be more happening than that.

As I said before, withholding sex AND running out and overtly banging your neighbor I would say that situation is abuse.

But just NOT having sex with your spouse?

Nah.



Squeakr said:


> Sex, it is done to give the spouse an edge and control them to do what they wish, whatever that might be emotionally, mentally, or physically.


People withhold sex for a variety of reasons, that's just mind reading you posted there.

INTENT does not define abuse, the situation itself does.



Squeakr said:


> People who don't date are not being withheld anything by anyone, so no abuse there (at least from that) or possible as they are singles, unless they are abusing themselves (which is another discussion)


And they aren't keeling over dead as nails either... so we can cross sexlessness = death off the list. lol



Squeakr said:


> I would say that your neighbor was not abused unless he was being forced to live that way by someone, in which case yes he is being abused. If he had a steady partner and they were withholding from him (no matter what it is) strictly for controlling purposes, then yes he is being abused.


Not if you can LEAVE. If you choose to say, then you are allowing it to happen.

If I WALK INTO a BASEBALL bat that's not abuse. I can BACK AWAY from it.


----------



## Plan 9 from OS (Jul 13, 2012)

Allen_A said:


> lol
> 
> You guys are losing credibility with every post :
> 
> ...


No one is making this claim. The gist of the article is about a BS being the one withholding sex, and the WS is outsourcing his/her needs to a 3rd party. What you stated above is NOT what we've been talking about in this thread.


----------



## Squeakr (May 1, 2013)

Plan 9 from OS said:


> I don't care what you call it, but if you become complacent, an inactive participant in your marriage or "neutral" to your spouse then it WILL negatively affect the marriage. So yes, it is a slow acting poison that can ruin your marriage. Your marriage is like a person. Feed it well and it will thrive. Starve or poison it and it will die. No doubt that we all can die from a whole slew of things. A car crash can kill you instantly. Alcoholism or smoking can take a few decades to do the job. If divorce is analogous to dying by unnatural means, then anything that cuts a life short is bad, right? So anything that cuts a marriage short (before one spouse passes away) is not desirable to a happy home. Complacency is a choice. It means that a person does not value their spouse highly enough to make him/her a priority. So your example where these two people just "drifted apart" is weak. The fact is that one or both of them did not care to see the marriage work. That is a choice.


I don't care how you call it either or what you believe it will do to a marriage. Complacency is a feeling of being satisfied with how things are and not wanting to try to make them better as per Webster. just because it is not wanting it to grow doesn't equally mean that it wants it to die. Your feeding analogy is perfect as feed it well and it thrives, starve or poison it and it dies, but the last option which you avoided is feed it just the right amount and it stays the same never growing nor dying, that is complacency. I couldn't care less if you agree or not. You proposed the 3 options and now you are eliminating one. These were your offerings so honor them (instead of going back and saying that there really is not neutral as that is just a negative in she eps clothing). 

Whether you like my drifting apart scenario or not, I grew up with these people and saw it first hand. They were just there, never got better or worse, so they just decided to end it as neither was overall happy nor unhappy but felt that the other would benefit possibly from the split. They were split when they came to my wedding and I never even knew until they told people as they were still the same couple together, no changes to either, so I stand by my original statements having lived it.


----------



## Allen_A (Nov 18, 2013)

Plan 9 from OS said:


> Maybe someone tried to argue the point that a lack of sex will physically kill you. I'm not sure who did that, but from what I've been reading, people are saying that sexless can (and many cases will) kill a marriage.


Yes, someone here actually went as far as saying if you dont get sex you will die. lol

I kid you not, the debate has actually gotten that ridiculous.

Sexlessness CAN destroy a marriage. Yup.

Is it abuse? No. Despite posters here arguing that this is the case.

Is it as bad as infidelity? No. Despite posters here arguing that this is the case.

Guys, everything that troubles a marriage can't be toxic and abusive. SOMETHING has to be simply a problem.

No sex in a marriage, that and ONLY that is not toxic or abusive, its a PROBLEM for many marriages.

If you throw in name calling, threats, public humiliation, etc then ya, it becomes abuse. But then we aren't just talking about not having sex anymore, we are talking about something far more viscous.

If your spouse is calling you a rapist and a sex-addict, and throwing things at you, yelling, threatening to call the cops on you, just because you want to have sex, THAT would be abuse.

But simply NOT having sex with you? No, you need more than that to play the abuse card.

Even infidelity isnt' abuse. But if you are engaged in OVERT infidelity, threatening your spouse with financial abandonment if your betrayed spouse does not comply, if you are laughing at your spouse's feeling violated and traumatized then ya, it's bordering on abuse.

Just cheating on someone, in secret ain't abuse, neither is not having sex with your spouse.


----------



## Allen_A (Nov 18, 2013)

Plan 9 from OS said:


> No one is making this claim. The gist of the article is about a BS being the one withholding sex, and the WS is outsourcing his/her needs to a 3rd party. What you stated above is NOT what we've been talking about in this thread.


Yes someone here DID make that claim, which is what I am refuting.

The article is ridiculous. Even most of the comments the "PhD" is getting at the tail of the article are refuting him quite well.

The guy just structured his argument in such an unrealistic context it's silly. And everyone is ripping him to pieces over it. Except here.


----------



## Thor (Oct 31, 2011)

Allen_A said:


> Sexlessness CAN destroy a marriage. Yup.
> 
> Is it abuse? No. Despite posters here arguing that this is the case.


By your definition it is not abuse, but many others would disagree. You have a very absolutist definition.


----------



## Thor (Oct 31, 2011)

Plan 9 from OS said:


> Again, we're talking within the context of a marriage. Why do you bring up the religious who specifically take vows of chastity? Maybe someone tried to argue the point that a lack of sex will physically kill you.


I didn't say that involuntary sexlessness *will* kill someone, but I did provide numerous links to articles referencing medical and psych studies which show substantial negative effects of involuntary sexlessness. Depression, heart damage, suppressed immune system were some of the effects noted in the studies. One linked suicide to depression as a related downstream possible outcome.

It is false to claim there are no long term medical impacts of forced sexlessness in a marriage, and it would be false to claim there would be no reduction in expected lifespan in a statistically studied population.


----------



## Plan 9 from OS (Jul 13, 2012)

Squeakr said:


> I don't care how you call it either or what you believe it will do to a marriage. Complacency is a feeling of being satisfied with how things are and not wanting to try to make them better as per Webster. just because it is not wanting it to grow doesn't equally mean that it wants it to die. Your feeding analogy is perfect as feed it well and it thrives, starve or poison it and it dies, but the last option which you avoided is feed it just the right amount and it stays the same never growing nor dying, that is complacency. I couldn't care less if you agree or not. You proposed the 3 options and now you are eliminating one. These were your offerings so honor them (instead of going back and saying that there really is not neutral as that is just a negative in she eps clothing).
> 
> Whether you like my drifting apart scenario or not, I grew up with these people and saw it first hand. They were just there, never got better or worse, so they just decided to end it as neither was overall happy nor unhappy but felt that the other would benefit possibly from the split. They were split when they came to my wedding and I never even knew until they told people as they were still the same couple together, no changes to either, so I stand by my original statements having lived it.


OK, yes I gave three options as to how events will affect a marriage. That's different from the overall trajectory of a marriage - which will either grow stronger or weaken. We're humans. We do not stay static in our thoughts. The longer we live the more we mature, and the more we change. So it's inevitable that the marriage will either change for the better or change for the worse. A marriage will not remain in the same place thru inaction. I think of marriage as something that has to be fed or it will die. Complacency is NOT neutral. Being complacent is assuming that you have arrived. It's hubris. BTW, here is the definition of complacent in Miriam Webster's:



> 1
> : marked by self-satisfaction especially when accompanied by unawareness of actual dangers or deficiencies : marked by complacency : self-satisfied <a complacent smile>
> 2
> : complaisant 1
> ...


----------



## LongWalk (Apr 4, 2013)

Squeakr said:


> WorkingOnMe said:
> 
> 
> > Nope. You're wrong. And no amount of avoiding the subject of the article will change that. Sorry.
> ...


That is exactly the hypothetical scenario I mentioned earlier. Hard to imagine that spouses to MS sufferers simply resign themselves to a sexless existence. Moreover, if a spouse knew that a request for an open marriage would break the spirit of the ill spouse, it might be better to cheat.

_Posted via *Topify* using iPhone/iPad_


----------



## Squeakr (May 1, 2013)

Thor said:


> Those links I posted are from medical and psychological studies which say there *are* negative affects to a *sexless marriage*.
> 
> Voluntary abstention is different than involuntary sexless marriage. There is great psychological stress in the involuntary sexless marriage. This is the source of the physical harm to a person's body.


I looked at them (yes I do look at what people post) and there were no figures, statistics, or general provable and reproduce able facts, just It mays and It cans and all about helping the current physical condition, nothing definitive that guarantees an outcome, and none of them stated anything to the negative about abstaining, so this is nothing more than your interpretation.

So now you are changing your point yet again. Now you are trying to further break it down by involuntary and voluntary. Would you mind posting your resources for these latest claims as well (and maybe post some actual scientific claims to the prior statements you were challenged to back and have yet to do, as we all know that Women's Day is the premier medical research journal that all top notch institutions subscribe and refer to).


----------



## Thor (Oct 31, 2011)

Squeakr said:


> I looked at them (yes I do look at what people post) and there were no figures, statistics, or general provable and reproduce able facts, just It mays and It cans and all about helping the current physical condition, nothing definitive that guarantees an outcome, and none of them stated anything to the negative about abstaining, so this is nothing more than your interpretation.
> 
> So now you are changing your point yet again. Now you are trying to further break it down by involuntary and voluntary. Would you mind posting your resources for these latest claims as well (and maybe post some actual scientific claims to the prior statements you were challenged to back and have yet to do, as we all know that Women's Day is the premier medical research journal that all top notch institutions subscribe and refer to).


This is total BS.

I discern between voluntary and involuntary because Allen kept bringing up nuns and priests. Involuntary sexlessness in a relationship is completely different because of the psychological effects. It is very stressful and upsetting to be in a sexless marriage involuntarily. A nun or priest is choosing celibacy as part of their affirmation of faith, which makes their celibacy a positive psychological factor.

Stress, anxiety, upset, emotional turmoil, and depression all cause significant physiological responses. All kinds of chemical and physical changes occur. It is well established medically that these physiological effects over the long term have very negative medical impacts.

So there is the connection: Involuntary sexlessness >>> Stress, anxiety, turmoil, depression >>> Physical manifestations >>> Long term medical impacts.

If you believe that to be false, show me the studies which indicate involuntary sexlessness does not cause stress. Show me the studies which refute the connection between emotional stress and physical responses. Show me the studies which say there is no long term medical impact of emotional stress and depression.


----------



## Squeakr (May 1, 2013)

Thor said:


> By your definition it is not abuse, but many others would disagree. You have a very absolutist definition.


:iagree::iagree::iagree:  If it doesn't meet his terms then everyone else is in the wrong and only his definitions and ideals apply.


----------



## Allen_A (Nov 18, 2013)

Squeakr said:


> If it doesn't meet his terms then everyone else is in the wrong and only his definitions and ideals apply.


That would go for everyone posting on this silly thread. lol


----------



## Squeakr (May 1, 2013)

Thor said:


> This is total BS.
> 
> I discern between voluntary and involuntary because Allen kept bringing up nuns and priests. Involuntary sexlessness in a relationship is completely different because of the psychological effects. It is very stressful and upsetting to be in a sexless marriage involuntarily. A nun or priest is choosing celibacy as part of their affirmation of faith, which makes their celibacy a positive psychological factor.
> 
> ...


Talk about BS, you never differentiated and started adding involuntary and voluntary until page 10. Before then it was strictly sexless marriage that you discussed and referred to. Go back and read your own statements (and if you have changed them read those that quoted you so that the truth is seen).

You have also been the one that stated it would decrease your life span and cause your death, but you are hiding that fact when someone asks if it was brought up. I don't deny your linkages between the health factors and and that it can cause health issues but there is no absolute or verified correlation, just as those that smoke have a greater risk for cancers and health issues, there are no definitive proofs that claim you will get sick or die from smoking just that the risk increases (a "can" or "may" as you will).

Now you are doing the traditional straw man arguments and dodging challenges by playing the "don't believe me then prove me wrong statements as I have nothing to prove to you!" You have yet to provide any medically based proof that shows that sexless marriages (involuntary or voluntary) will definitely cause negative affects to your health in the long term and shorten your lifespan. Your claims that researchers can amass the numbers easily has gone unverified when challenged to produce such proof. You have used nothing more than stating that sound health principles are at work here and if I don't see the correlation I am a fool.

I could take your progression statement and put anything into the place of sexless marriage that can cause any or all of the same symptoms and then claim the same thing as you are. Yes it would be a logical progression but it would not be a proven and tested scientific theory. Just as most things cause issues, we can't just make claims that they definitely cause something to happen without proof which is what you are doing. Just because there are medical stats out there proving that stress can shorten your lifespan an deteriorate your health, and stress is a possibility from something doesn't mean that that something is definitely proven to cause health issues, it just means that a higher risk is possible in such situations. 

Your claims have never been that it causes a higher risk for the individual, but that it definitely does cause health issues and there is a diffract and proven correlation.


----------



## Squeakr (May 1, 2013)

Allen_A said:


> That would go for everyone posting on this silly thread. lol


Wrong, several of us can agree that if it doesn't agree with or meet our personal definitions, but we don't automatically assume that everyone else is wrong because of that, just that they are different in viewpoints, unless they take an absolute stand as you have on lots of points. Just because it doesn't meet your needs of abuse, you belittle others and claim it is not abuse, even though several feel it is.


----------



## Trickster (Nov 19, 2011)

Allen-

I have no idea what more I can add. I think I have read most of the posts...

You are right, nobody will die from being sexless. With sex comes affection and intimacy. Without affection and intimacy, people do slowly die inside. Some people get their affection needs met in a marriage without sex as long as there is affection.

People without friends and family, people without a partner, people who are lonely, have way more health issues than others... Usually a sexless marriage is also affectionless. That's the killer.

So when many people cheat. Its more about desire and affection than sex...sex is just the frosting... But if I get close enough to other women for affection, I want the sex as well...Not to that point yet. I am close though. 


I know an older couple, the wife has MS. I assume there is no sex. I could be wrong... What I do see is lots of affection. They are both in their 80's. They also have many friends and play poker with about 8 other people every week. They seem to do fine without the sex because they fill their "love tank" by other means.

Being in a sexless marriage or where there is sex without emotion/ duty sex is still degrading and plays havoc on ones health.

There is no glory in D. I can't say I am willing to D because we have little sexual chemistry. So, we no longer love each other, we grew apart because of little affection, so let's D. That sounds depressing as well. Financially, it will never work. Not anytime soon.

Open marriage? No... Although we have an agreement now, somebody will eventually get hurt. The women who seem interested are not really the ones I want.

I do agree infidelity is wrong no matter what, if my LD wife had an affair or had a relationship with another man, I think it would devistate me because she had so little desire for so long. That would kill my self-esteem more than it is at this point.


I am getting my love tank filled with my work, new friends, and occasional lunch dates... I do NEED friends, even if some are women... My survival needs it.


----------



## Allen_A (Nov 18, 2013)

Squeakr said:


> Wrong, several of us can agree that if it doesn't agree with or meet our personal definitions, but we don't automatically assume that everyone else is wrong because of that, just that they are different in viewpoints, unless they take an absolute stand as you have on lots of points. Just because it doesn't meet your needs of abuse, you belittle others and claim it is not abuse, even though several feel it is.


:rofl:

Sure, I am the biased one and everyone else is objective. lol

Blatant hypocrisy!

Man that is the funniest thing I have read on this whole forum yet.

We all have our opinions and no one here is changing anyone else's mind.

The term abuse is used specifically to isolate extreeme cases where the law ought to get involved : social workers, the police, lawyers, and judges.

A man beating his wife purple because she refuses to have sex with him is abuse.

A wife refusing to put out for her husband is not abuse, not by any standard that anyone authorized to act on it would ever support.

You guys really have no idea how silly your argument sounds.

If your spouse won't put out, you leave, you don't file an abuse case to have them charged. The police and social workers would just laugh at you as hard as I am.

Experiencing sexual rejection and long term neglect is hurtful, I don't dispute that. But there is no court in North America that would allow you to press abuse charges against your spouse for emotional abuse simply because they don't put out. And courts are the ones who make these decisions, so they own the term in their courtroom. And we understand that term in how the courts apply and use it.

If ALL your spouse is doing is NOT having sex with you, that's not going to get an abuse charge signed by anyone. You are gonna need a LOT more than that. Throwing things, name calling, lying, SOMETHING else.

No, I don't define abuse, courts do. But I DO have a good idea of how courts define that since it's pretty well documented. You can go to any social services center or call an abuse hotline and they will tell you what indicators to look for. One of the KEY indicators is FEAR.

And sorry, a spouse not putting out does not make me FEAR them.

You guys experiencing sexless marriages I do feel for you. This is hurtful and I do get that. But this is NOT abuse, not by any standard in North America that I have read yet to date.


----------



## Thor (Oct 31, 2011)

Squeakr said:


> Talk about BS, you never differentiated and started adding involuntary and voluntary until page 10. Before then it was strictly sexless marriage that you discussed and referred to. Go back and read your own statements (and if you have changed them read those that quoted you so that the truth is seen).
> 
> You have also been the one that stated it would decrease your life span and cause your death, but you are hiding that fact when someone asks if it was brought up.


I have not changed any of my posts except immediate edits for spelling within moments of posting.

I specified voluntary sexlessness in reaction to Allen bringing up the fact that nuns are not dying left and right. I stand by my position that voluntary celibacy, especially as part of a religious calling, is not the negative psychological experience of someone involuntarily sexless in a marriage.

I never said that sexlessness would cause my death. I have carefully tried to state that it is a statistical life span issue with stressors. I know a woman over age 100 who smoked like a chimney and died of a fall while out in the snow chopping firewood for her wood stove in her mountain cabin. Will smoking absolutely kill every person who does it? No, but statistically the effects can be calculated based on the known medical effects on smokers. Same with significant emotional stress, medical researchers have found negative health outcomes due to chronic significant stress and emotional duress, and have stated that such effects have a generalized increase in earlier death. If you don't believe those statements to be true, show me the medical studies which say so.


----------



## Thor (Oct 31, 2011)

Squeakr said:


> Now you are doing the traditional straw man arguments and dodging challenges by playing the "don't believe me then prove me wrong statements as I have nothing to prove to you!" You have yet to provide any medically based proof that shows that sexless marriages (involuntary or voluntary) will definitely cause negative affects to your health in the long term and shorten your lifespan. Your claims that researchers can amass the numbers easily has gone unverified when challenged to produce such proof. You have used nothing more than stating that sound health principles are at work here and if I don't see the correlation I am a fool.
> 
> I could take your progression statement and put anything into the place of sexless marriage that can cause any or all of the same symptoms and then claim the same thing as you are. Yes it would be a logical progression but it would not be a proven and tested scientific theory. Just as most things cause issues, we can't just make claims that they definitely cause something to happen without proof which is what you are doing. Just because there are medical stats out there proving that stress can shorten your lifespan an deteriorate your health, and stress is a possibility from something doesn't mean that that something is definitely proven to cause health issues, it just means that a higher risk is possible in such situations.
> 
> Your claims have never been that it causes a higher risk for the individual, but that it definitely does cause health issues and there is a diffract and proven correlation.


Then I have been lied to by the media, health magazines, and my docs who all advise reducing stress in life in order to reduce negative health effects. I thought it was common knowledge that stress hormones damage our bodies and can lead to disease and even early death. I thought it was accepted as medical fact that immune systems are compromised by ongoing stress.


----------



## Thor (Oct 31, 2011)

Allen_A said:


> The term abuse is used specifically to isolate extreeme cases where the law ought to get involved : social workers, the police, lawyers, and judges.


That is an extremely narrow definition which I believe many psych professionals would disagree with.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

This site will explain it a little better. I think the pie chart is an easy way to quickly understand. There are many variables involved and if you just look at the top of the page in the link and to the right, you will find a bullet list of questionable behaviors and actions. 

Ha!  I tried to copy and paste the pie chart and it comes out HUGE, hahaha, so, you'll have to click on the link. 

The National Domestic Violence Hotline | Abuse Defined


I'll tell you the truth, if anyone here thinks he hasn't done at list one of those things on the pie chart at least once, I have to call him out for not being truthful. I think it's best to stay single, to tell the truth. 

I'd have to say that would hold true for quite few women, too, if you don't consider physical intimidation a factor as well. In some cases, the size difference wouldn't matter. Especially if the wife is a seasoned, martial arts practitioner and the husband is a, "regular joe".


----------



## Allen_A (Nov 18, 2013)

Ya, from that website I think we can be confident that simply withholding sex is NOT abuse : 

_What Does An Abusive Relationship Look Like?

Does your partner ever….

> Embarrass you with put-downs?
> Control what you do, who you see or talk to or where you go?
> Look at you or act in ways that scare you?
> Push you, slap you, choke you or hit you?
> Stop you from seeing your friends or family members?
> Control the money in the relationship? Take your money or Social Security check, make you ask for money or refuse to give you money?
> Make all of the decisions?
> Tell you that you’re a bad parent or threaten to take away your children?
> Prevent you from working or attending school?
> Act like the abuse is no big deal, deny the abuse or tell you it’s your own fault?
> Destroy your property or threaten to kill your pets?
> Intimidate you with guns, knives or other weapons?
> Attempt to force you to drop criminal charges?
> Threaten to commit suicide, or threaten to kill you?

If you answered ‘yes’ to even one of these questions, you may be in an unhealthy or abusive relationship._

OK? Does anyone see NO SEX on that list or anything even CLOSE to that?

NO?

That's because withholding sex is NOT ABUSE.

Even arguing cases of overt infidelity is a stretch for an abuse charge. You really can't say NO SEX is abuse.

You can look at other social services websites and they will have similar definitions guys. I have WORKED for social services organizations full time for many years. I don't anymore, but I can tell you this list above is pretty standard fare.

Sorry.

Withholding sex is hurtful, and I do sympathize, but it's NOT abuse. Not by any common standard used in North America that I have found to date.

OK?

1. You can't DIE from not having sex.
2. Withholding sex, while hurtful, is NOT ABUSE.


----------



## Allen_A (Nov 18, 2013)

Thor said:


> That is an extremely narrow definition which I believe many psych professionals would disagree with.


And psych professionals disagree with each other, it's how they get tenure and stay employed.

The term abuse, as it is applied in practice by courts of law is how I am defining it. Not by you, or some ivory tower PhD like the clown who wrote this article.

Withholding sex, as the term abuse is applied in courts across North America, is NOT abuse. Not even a close call.


----------



## Squeakr (May 1, 2013)

Allen_A said:


> Ya, from that website I think we can be confident that simply withholding sex is NOT abuse :
> 
> _What Does An Abusive Relationship Look Like?
> 
> ...


If you go to the other sections below the power wheel it does say withholding affection is abuse so that is very close and it does say serial cheating and blatant cheating are also abuse (although it does say no one is obligated to give sex within a relationship to include marriage so the expectation that sex is a given in a marriage is also disproven by this website, which would go against several state laws that say if sex is withheld it is grounds for annullment, meaning that the marriage never occurred and is wiped from all records as it never existed so which one is correct, as you are so bound by laws and what courts will rule and the decider of all that is right and just?). I agree that you are in a narrow definition of abuse by stating that it is only something that requires legal and the police involvement. Just because one ant be charged legally doesn't make something any less. Like your previous rang about finding a court to try someone for withholding sex, neither would a court try someone for constantly putting someone down and belittling them yet it is still considered abuse. I would like to see the Trial where the person is convicted for saying things like you make me sick or you are dumb to another constantly. It wouldn't go to trial although it would be considered abuse, the worst case scenario would be a restraining order or order of protection because the one party felt threatened and not because of the words of the other party.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Squeakr (May 1, 2013)

Thor said:


> Then I have been lied to by the media, health magazines, and my docs who all advise reducing stress in life in order to reduce negative health effects. I thought it was common knowledge that stress hormones damage our bodies and can lead to disease and even early death. I thought it was accepted as medical fact that immune systems are compromised by ongoing stress.


Straw man again. You have yet to prove that sexless marriages definitely cause stress and early deaths as you stated earlier. Even now you are saying it is recommended to reduce but there is no guarantee that this will definitely lead to a longer life. Just as everything else I have said, it can and may but there is no guarantee. Your statement was an absolute and you have yet to provide proof to back it up like requested. According to your claims, if it was so bad then someone who regularly engages in strenuous exercise but doesn't have sex would live a shorter life than the person whom does the same activities but does, correct? Show the proof as you have said it would be so easy to gather the numbers earlier.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Squeakr (May 1, 2013)

Allen_A said:


> :rofl:
> 
> Sure, I am the biased one and everyone else is objective. lol
> 
> ...


No hypocrisy at all. I never said that you were the only one biased nor that anyone was trying to influence or change anyone's mind just that we all have our own view points and want to present them without the insults and belittling. I don't low where you got your attitude from but it needs to be checked as no one is attacking you just stating the obvious regarding your posts, and this is not the only thread this has come up within, yet you continue to belittle and insult anyone that doesn't share your views. Not hypocrisy at all. In fact your constant insulting snide remarks about being idiotic comparisons, stupidest thing you have seen yet, funniest thing I have read on the whole forum prove the exact opposite and support my point. 

You terminology is how you see it but that is not an all encompassing and complete definition. Abuse is farther reaching than just the "extremes that require legal actions". Sometimes it is small enough that it warrants nothing more than a good session with a counselor but is still none the less abuse. As per the website you are so on support of cheating is most definitely abuse and setting an allowance for someone is also abuse but neither of these would be chargeable offenses in most court systems which seems to be your defining factor for what constitutes abuse.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Squeakr (May 1, 2013)

Thor said:


> I have not changed any of my posts except immediate edits for spelling within moments of posting.
> 
> I specified voluntary sexlessness in reaction to Allen bringing up the fact that nuns are not dying left and right. I stand by my position that voluntary celibacy, especially as part of a religious calling, is not the negative psychological experience of someone involuntarily sexless in a marriage.
> 
> I never said that sexlessness would cause my death.


Your original statement stated that sexless marriages cause mental and physical health issues that will kill you. It may not happen in one day or one week but it will cause you to die earlier. Your statements are definitive and wide spread and their is no such thing as a calculated life span. This is just some figure that researchers have devised like the bmi chart that really has no at in today's standard lifestyle. Whom is to say what is normal and average and based upon what? The bmi chart for instance is so old that it is based upon a time when body stature was smaller and Han musculature didn't develop as easily as today (mainly due to diet and lifestyle changes). I know several people that have a calculated bmi ratio of 35% and greater by the chart which would make them grossly obese, yet carry a body fat of less than 8%, which by most standards is unhealthy. Our medical guidelines these days are on lots of senses grossly outdated (and this is the statement from general practitioner, a learned physician and not my viewpoints).
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

I do think anything on that site, that is listed under the tabs below is an offense of the law. I'm no attorney, so don't take it to court on what I write, but that's how I understand it. If it's somewhere on that list or under those tabs, you can at minimum, file for and get a protection from abuse order. 

That was why I commented that I can't imagine anyone not doing at least one of those things somewhere, and maybe I didn't state it in this much detail, but my intent was there, he or she could have their veracity called into question. 

As far as severity and the number of occurrences within a certain time frame, I don't know. I'm certain that has something to do with calling an action or behavior abuse and having it be used to obtain a protection order.


----------



## Allen_A (Nov 18, 2013)

Squeakr said:


> If you go to the other sections below the power wheel it does say withholding affection is abuse so that is very close and it does say serial cheating and blatant cheating are also abuse


You mean this :

_You may be in an emotionally abusive relationship if you partner exerts control through: 

Calling you names, insulting you or continually criticizing you
Refusing to trust you and acting jealous or possessive
Trying to isolate you from family or friends
Monitoring where you go, who you call and who you spend time with
Demanding to know where you are every minute
Punishing you by withholding affection
Threatening to hurt you, the children, your family or your pets
Humiliating you in any way
Blaming you for the abuse
Accusing you of cheating and being often jealous of your outside relationships
Serially cheating on you and then blaming you for his or her behavior
Cheating on you intentionally to hurt you and then threatening to cheat again
Cheating to prove that they are more desired, worthy, etc. than you are
Attempting to control your appearance: what you wear, how much/little makeup you wear, etc.
Telling you that you will never find anyone better, or that you are lucky to be with a person like them

_

It doesn't just say cheating is abuse no. A particular flavor of it MAY indicate abuse. Which is what I said earlier and this set of guidelines here just reinforces My point. Some infidelity cases MAY be found as abusive IF the infidelity is overt enough. But it has to be MORE than just cheating - cheating and threatening to do it AGAIN, cheating and BLAMING YOU for it, etc... THAT MAY get an abuse charge filed... MAYBE.

But more to the point, guys, abuse is NOT a checklist. Abuse is a technical term used by law to define a behavior that authorities can enter a domestic situation and intervene.

Sure, cheating is mentioned on here.... but simply not having sex with your spouse does NOT make you abusive. No court of law will agree with you.

Sorry, it just doesn't. When abuse cases get ACTED on there is a LOT going on... Not just ONE item on a checklist. You aren't going to get any lawyer or even a social worker to act on one item in this huge list of transgressions. And withholding sex isn't' even IN here.

The closest thing you got is this :

_
Forcing you to dress in a sexual way
Insulting you in sexual ways or calls you sexual names
Forcing or manipulating you into to having sex or performing sexual acts
Holding you down during sex
Demanding sex when you’re sick, tired or after hurting you
Hurting you with weapons or objects during sex
Involving other people in sexual activities with you against your will
Ignoring your feelings regarding sex
Forcing you to watch pornography
Purposefully trying to pass on a sexually transmitted disease to you
_

And in the context of the description guidelines here I dont' read even that red highlight as meaning withholding sex as abuse. I read that as disregarding someone ELSE's feelings regarding NOT wanting to have sex, or NOT wanting to have sex in a particular way. Withholding sex isn't' in there at all, nothing even related to it from my read of the text.

I repeat again, withholding sex is not abuse, not by any legal standard I have ever come across. This is not even a close call guys.

If that is ALL your spouse is doing that upsets you, if they aren't calling you names, throwing things, making threats, then you do NOT have a domestic abuse case happening here.

This site isn't bad, but it IS pretty standard, there are hundreds of lists like this.. withholding sex isn't even a close call here, I seriously doubt you will find it on any of them. And even if you DID, if that is ALL the spouse is doing, no court of law will agree this is abuse and act on just that ONE transgression.

Sorry.


----------



## Allen_A (Nov 18, 2013)

And from the same website :

_
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sexual coercion

Sexual coercion lies on the ‘continuum’ of sexually aggressive behavior. It can vary from being egged on and persuaded, to being forced to have contact. It can be verbal and emotional, in the form of statements that make you feel pressure, guilt, or shame. You can also be made to feel forced through more subtle actions. For example, an abusive partner:

Making you feel like you owe them — ex. Because you’re in a relationship, because you’ve had sex before, because they spent money on you or bought you a gift
Giving you drugs and alcohol to “loosen up” your inhibitions
Playing on the fact that you’re in a relationship, saying things such as: “Sex is the way to prove your love for me,” “If I don’t get sex from you I’ll get it somewhere else”
Reacting negatively with sadness, anger or resentment if you say no or don’t immediately agree to something
Continuing to pressure you after you say no
Making you feel threatened or afraid of what might happen if you say no
Trying to normalize their sexual expectations: ex. “I need it, I’m a man”

Even if your partner isn’t forcing you to do sexual acts against your will, being made to feel obligated is coercion in itself. Dating someone, being in a relationship, or being married never means that you owe your partner intimacy of any kind.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_

Guys, if you are using the kind of arguments and intensity here that you are with your spouse, YOU MAY be the one that's guilty of abuse here.

I seriously DOUBT it is extreme enough to warrant abuse, but you really need to look in the mirror here.

Look at what I highlighted.

I have heard some ridiculous arguments here such as "I need sex or I will die", and ironically accusing spouses that withhold sex as being abusive.

Pressuring your spouse to have sex with you when they don't want to COULD tread on abuse itself. This includes accusing your withholding spouse as being abusive, or threatening your spouse that if they don't sleep with you, that you will die.


I actually find it quite ironic that your own abuse arguments are now standing on their head.


----------



## Squeakr (May 1, 2013)

Allen_A said:


> It doesn't just say cheating is abuse no. A particular flavor of it MAY indicate abuse.
> 
> Guys, abuse is NOT a checklist. Abuse is a technical term used by law to define a behavior that authorities can enter a domestic situation and intervene.


I agree it is not a checklist, and thus not limited and contained to certain bounds. The whole website is nothing more than a compilation of determining actions and factors that MAY indicate abuse is present or has occurred and doesn't mean that because some of the issues or actions occurred that abuse can and should be charged. It is meant as a resource for those to get answers to questions they may have but is not all inclusive. In fact it even states that if you are in question of something to contact the hotline, it doesn't say to immediately call the police and secure legal actions.

Why do you get to say what determines what is and isn't abuse and how it is defined Just because you define it is a "technical term by law to define behavior that authorities can enter a domestic situation and intervene" doesn't make it so. By what authority do you have the right to limit the definition and interpretation of abuse, as several definitions exist? I looked it up and no where did it state your terminology and definition. You are so bent on insuring that it is strictly a legal issue then why define it with "your" self defined definition and not the one that is directly used within the legal system that you are throwing around so much (as you do in several posts yet never actually provide the support just, "I have never seen anyone convicted/arrested/ charged with that and it would be thrown out if it was"). If you are an actual lawyer then use terminology and examples from real life that would be within the legal jargon and accepted usage and not your self defined ideals and standards.

Abuse is also a psychological term also and used by mental health and relationship professionals, of which many would disagree with your statements of what is and isn't abuse (as has been pointed out numerous times) yet you dismiss them as it doesn't meet your criteria and agenda.

Just face it, because it doesn't meet your terminology and criteria it is not abuse in your eyes, which is fine and your right to see it as consider it as such, but that doesn't make it to be any less abuse in someone else's eyes because you believe it not to be. Just because one can't be legally charged with a crime doesn't make an action any less wrong morally or socially to some people, it just mean that it isn't criminal and against any law therefor the judicial system can't punish them for such actions.


----------



## Thor (Oct 31, 2011)

Allen_A said:


> And psych professionals disagree with each other, it's how they get tenure and stay employed.
> 
> The term abuse, as it is applied in practice by courts of law is how I am defining it. Not by you, or some ivory tower PhD like the clown who wrote this article.
> 
> Withholding sex, as the term abuse is applied in courts across North America, is NOT abuse. Not even a close call.


OK, so lawyers and judges define what abuse is, not shrinks. When a patient exhibits psychological and physical manifestations consistent with abuse, the shrinks had better not call it abuse and should not apply therapy methods for abuse, because it would be useless or even harmful to use the wrong psychotherapy.

Ah, scratch all that. Dump the DSM and all the years of training which Ph.D. Psychologists, MD Psychiatrists, and other psychotherapists have. Let's look to the legal code instead, and let lawyers do trauma therapy.

Thankfully, lawyers and judges never disagree with other lawyers or judges....


----------



## Thor (Oct 31, 2011)

Squeakr said:


> Straw man again. You have yet to prove that sexless marriages definitely cause stress and early deaths as you stated earlier.


I think there is ample proof that being in an involuntary sexless marriage causes emotional stress. One only has to experience it, or know someone who experienced it, or read some threads on TAM, or talk to an acquaintance who is a therapist and has had clients who were in sexless marriages.

Once that hurdle is crossed, linking involuntary sexless marriage to emotional stress, there is no rational argument to say there is no health decrement or potential long term effects. Again, perhaps I have been misinformed over the last 40+ years as an adult being aware of health stories in the news and in health magazines, but there is a consistent connection made between stress and significant health problems. If there is no connection, if there is no affect on hormones, organs, heart, immune system, digestion, etc, then stress might feel bad but there is no worry of heart attack, stroke, suicide, cancer, infection, obesity, etc.


----------



## Allen_A (Nov 18, 2013)

Squeakr said:


> Why do you get to say what determines what is and isn't abuse and how it is defined Just because you define it is a "technical term by law to define behavior that authorities can enter a domestic situation and intervene" doesn't make it so. By what authority do you have the right to limit the definition and interpretation of abuse, as several definitions exist? I looked it up and no where did it state your terminology and definition. You are so bent on insuring that it is strictly a legal issue then why define it with "your" self defined definition and not the one that is directly used within the legal system that you are throwing around so much (as you do in several posts yet never actually provide the support just, "I have never seen anyone convicted/arrested/ charged with that and it would be thrown out if it was"). If you are an actual lawyer then use terminology and examples from real life that would be within the legal jargon and accepted usage and not your self defined ideals and standards.


I am not defining it as a technical term.. it IS a technical term. lol

I didn't assert I had any "right to limit the definition".. that's how the damn word is USED man. lol

Furthermore, I haven't defined abuse, YOU GUYS did by pulling up that website. lol

All I have been doing over and OVER is warning you guys that you are WAY OFF if you think withholding sex is abuse in and of itself. That's not me defining anything, that's me bringing to your attention how a word is actually applied by LAW.

I don't need to be a damn lawyer to read social services abuse definitions.. withholding sex is NOT even a CLOSE CALL. If it WAS a close call I would not be this emphatic.

Use examples from real life? Really? There are people on here telling you that if you don't have sex you will DIE and you tell ME to get real? lol

What a laugh.

This website referenced IS real life.. it's not MY website, I didnt' even POST the LINK.. someone ELSE did... and it shows pretty damn clearly that withholding sex is NOT ABUSE.

A REAL WEBSITE.. from a REAL PERSON.. IN REAL LIFE.

Not my definition, not my website, sorry.



Squeakr said:


> Abuse is also a psychological term also and used by mental health and relationship professionals,


Yup, and THEY would TESTIFY in COURTS of LAW dude. We are back to the law.. AGAIN.. it is a LEGAL TERM.



Squeakr said:


> of which many would disagree with your statements of what is and isn't abuse (as has been pointed out numerous times) yet you dismiss them as it doesn't meet your criteria and agenda.


Then Go FIND one and GOOD LUCK with that. lol

YOU go find me a REAL example from a REAL person in REAL LIFE that shows this.. again, good luck with that.

And AGAIN for the peanut gallery - NOT MY DEFINITION.. it's not MY WEBSITE. Not my criteria, it's not MY WEBSITE.

NO agenda either, I am just here telling you guys that you don't know what the HELL you are talking about... in the REAL WORLD of social work withholding sex in and of itself is NOT ABUSE. I have WORKED in social service agencies. You will not get anyone of any authority of this topic to agree with you on this.

But, suit yourself.. go find someone, and best of luck to you.



Squeakr said:


> Just face it, because it doesn't meet your terminology and criteria it is not abuse in your eyes


My eyes have nothing to do with this... LOOK at the DEFINITIONS on that WEBSITE.. NOT MY WEBSITE.

LOOK, use YOUR EYES and show me where it says withholding sex is abuse on there.

YOUR EYES need REPAIRS if you think it's there.. it's NOT. And again for the peanut gallery.. not MY definition, not my criteria, not my website.



Squeakr said:


> which is fine and your right to see it as consider it as such, but that doesn't make it to be any less abuse in someone else's eyes because you believe it not to be.


This isn't an issue of "eyes"... it's a term that is regularly applied in law and you are NOT acknowledging that. you want to REDEFINE the term so it suits YOUR AGENDA.

Withholding sex, as the term is used in practice by law is NOT ABUSE. YOU are the one who needs to get real and drop the agendas here.



Squeakr said:


> Just because one can't be legally charged with a crime doesn't make an action any less wrong morally or socially to some people, it just mean that it isn't criminal and against any law therefor the judicial system can't punish them for such actions.


If you want to argue withholding sex is morally offensive then DO that, but don't tell me it's ABUSE.

Use the right WORD and I MAY AGREE with you.


----------



## Thor (Oct 31, 2011)

Squeakr said:


> According to your claims, if it was so bad then someone who regularly engages in strenuous exercise but doesn't have sex would live a shorter life than the person whom does the same activities but does, correct? Show the proof as you have said it would be so easy to gather the numbers earlier.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


What? I have to study people who regularly exercise, control the variables, and then compare those who are in sexless marriages to those who are not?

Come on. Really?

How about you show me where I am wrong. Because all I have to do is a simple google search to bring up tons of info on the negative effects of stress on health. If you disagree with what seems to be a century of medical research, show me.

Here's a link from the Mayo Clinic on the physical effects of stress.
Stress symptoms: Effects on your body and behavior - Mayo Clinic

Here's a link from PsychCentral:
The Physical Effects of Long-Term Stress | Psych Central

Here's a link from the American Journal of Cardiology which shows an increase in lifespan when long term stress is corrected. Note the lower morbidity from cardio-vascular disease and a lower morbidity due to cancer.
Long-Term Effects of Stress Reduction on Mortality in Persons ≥55 Years of Age With Systemic Hypertension


----------



## Thor (Oct 31, 2011)

Is there any room for abuse to be defined by the person it happened to? Is there any room to make a diagnosis based on the symptoms of the patient?


----------



## Squeakr (May 1, 2013)

Thor said:


> What? I have to study people who regularly exercise, control the variables, and then compare those who are in sexless marriages to those who are not?
> 
> Come on. Really?
> 
> ...


But this is a different claim than you are making before. Just because you may feel it, doesn't make it so for everyone and this a proven absolute that a sexless marriage induces stress. I have been in a sexless marriage for a while and the stresses I have are not from that (and yes it is involuntary). You haven't proven that statement. Yes, It may lead to higher levels of stress, but that is no more conclusive than smoking definitely leads to a higher risk of cancer, neither are proven facts. 

Since you said it definitely caused those negative health issues, I just asked you to quote a source, just one is all. Now you have gone not to push the stress as a health factor, like this was your original claim. No where in your original claim was the word stress used. You are arguing something that you never originally said, thus changing the focus away from the original claims, thus a straw man argument.


----------



## Allen_A (Nov 18, 2013)

Thor said:


> Is there any room for abuse to be defined by the person it happened to? Is there any room to make a diagnosis based on the symptoms of the patient?


The patient submits their symptoms, and a designated authority would make the decision.. judge, social worker, psychologist, etc.

IF the case is mild a police officer may IGNORE the case entirely until it gets loud enough that they would act on it.

So no, patient's dont' get to define abuse in their own cases..that's why we have an impartial system.

And MOST patients aren't experts in social work or psychology.

Studies have further shown that people experiencing abuse often don't even realize it.. they are "in love" and just think that's part of the process...

So, their assessment is inexperienced and unreliable as an an expert witness.

Their testimony is taken, and reviewed by someone who knows what they are doing who deals with hundreds of cases day to day for years.

And no, I am not one of these experts, but I have worked along side them enough to know what you guys are talking about would never get into a courtroom in North America.

If you don't agree with how the law deals with these cases you have my full attention.

Heck the law won't even protect a home from third party interlopers who BLATANTLY TERRORIZE betrayed spouses.

We have ONE poster HERE on this forum (ARandomLady) who had OW SHOW UP at her HOME and YELL UP the STAIRS AT HER.. and the POLICE did NOTHING...

NOTHING!!!

So, I am sorry, and you do hoenstly have my sympathies, but no authority would act on your claims. Not from my experience, or research.

It takes a LOT for the law to intervene.

If they won't throw OW out of a BETRAYED SPOUSE's HOME.. when OW is YELLING OUTRIGHT at the betrayed wife.. why on earth would they support an abuse case for someone simply withholding sex?

They won't.

To my mind the OW in the case I am referring to should have been hauled off to JAIL at least for a night to cool off.

The cops did nothing, no psychologist, social worker, or lawyer was even brought in to review it.

And THAT to my mind, was WAY over the top in that case.


----------



## Thor (Oct 31, 2011)

Squeakr said:


> But this is a different claim than you are making before. Just because you may feel it, doesn't make it so for everyone and this a proven absolute that a sexless marriage induces stress. I have been in a sexless marriage for a while and the stresses I have are not from that (and yes it is involuntary). You haven't proven that statement. Yes, It may lead to higher levels of stress, but that is no more conclusive than smoking definitely leads to a higher risk of cancer, neither are proven facts.
> 
> Since you said it definitely caused those negative health issues, I just asked you to quote a source, just one is all. Now you have gone not to push the stress as a health factor, like this was your original claim. No where in your original claim was the word stress used. You are arguing something that you never originally said, thus changing the focus away from the original claims, thus a straw man argument.


I very specifically mentioned the statistical nature of health effects. Some people are badly affected by minor things, other people are not affected by big things. People smoke and live to be over 100 years old. Nothing is a sure thing when dealing with health issues. You're not arguing that smoking doesn't reduce lifespan statistically, are you? I'm arguing that stress statistically reduces health and statistically reduces lifespan, but for any one individual the effects may vary.

If you didn't feel stressed by a sexless marriage, fantastic. Others do feel stressed by it.

Use whatever word you want. Anxiety, depression, upset, I really don't give a crap anymore about this stupid argument. Someone argued that involuntary sexless marriage doesn't cause real problems and I pointed out that it does. You are free to nitpick words, parse statements, whatever. If you don't think it causes stress, great. If you don't think stress causes health problems, great.


----------



## Thor (Oct 31, 2011)

Allen_A said:


> The patient submits their symptoms, and a designated authority would make the decision.. judge, social worker, psychologist, etc.
> 
> IF the case is mild a police officer may IGNORE the case entirely until it gets loud enough that they would act on it.
> 
> ...


Man, you are so stuck in the legal authority defining a psychological condition.


----------



## Allen_A (Nov 18, 2013)

Thor said:


> Man, you are so stuck in the legal authority defining a psychological condition.


I am not stuck that is HOW it's done.. in the REAL WORLD.

http://talkaboutmarriage.com/coping...r-other-women-shows-up-our-home-confront.html

Check out her thread.. the cops did not even CALL a psychologist or anything.

If you guys want to have an ivory tower debate, go ahead, but it's a pointless exercise trying to RE-define a technical term without even looking at the way it's currently in use.


----------



## Squeakr (May 1, 2013)

Allen_A said:


> I am not defining it as a technical term.. it IS a technical term. lol
> 
> I didn't assert I had any "right to limit the definition".. that's how the damn word is USED man. lol
> 
> ...


That is a domestic violence website. No where on it when it defines abuse does it state that it is something that is against the law and it very severely limits what is abuse, because it terms it in the eyes of domestic violence. The examples being cited of abuse are not all chargeable offenses nor do they require intervention by legal entities and are just red flags that abuse MAY be occurring.

As per the website:
_Abuse is a repetitive pattern of behaviors to maintain power and control over an intimate partner. These are behaviors that physically harm, arouse fear, prevent a partner from doing what they wish or force them to behave in ways they do not want. Abuse includes the use of physical and sexual violence, threats and intimidation, emotional abuse and economic deprivation. Many of these different forms of abuse can be going on at any one time._

If you notice this definition is only within the bounds of domestic violence, no where does it state that the offenses are against the law and chargeable offenses in a court of law, nor that it is a technical legal term used within the justice system. Thus it shows this definition is not all encompassing of what is considered abuse. By this definition one couldn't be charged with abuse of a child, which we all agree is definitely abuse, because if this is the standard we are measuring by, unless that child was a partner and in a relationship with the abuser it doesn't meet their criteria and standards and any lawyer could get it thrown out on those bounds. 

Yes this may seem like an asinine argument (and it is extreme to show you that no absolute exists within defining abuse, but when you want to place absolutes on the definition of something then you must abide by the absolutely).

Some of the key indicators as per the website are:
Telling you that you can never do anything right
Showing jealousy of your friends and time spent away
Embarrassing or shaming you with put-downs
Looking at you or acting in ways that scare you

None of these flags, which they say are indicators of possible abuse, could be charged in a court of law. How would they be? Judge I want you to punish him as he looked at me strangely. Really?

You say you have no agenda, but yes you do, and that is to prove that everyone that thinks withholding sex is abuse is dead wrong in their judgments. I have conceded that in your opinion it is not and am fine with that, yet you still continue to fight the fact that I don't agree with you about my opinion of what is considered abuse. For the record I did have a couple of therapists that told my me and my WW that if either of us were withholding sex or intimacy that it was a type and form of abuse. But that is not something I could prove unless I could find them and get them to post their opinion on here stating that, which wouldn't matter anyways as you would argue they are wrong as it can't be supported, convicted, and upheld in a court of law. 

This argument is a fruitful as arguing that an EA, sexting, porn viewing, or online chatting is considered truly an A. Several will say yes, and others no, but even with good arguments and supporting evidence, people will still believe the way they want to , so there is no reason to continue to belittle, swear, and insult them (of which you have resorted to but I have not done yet) because they don't agree.


It's called an opinion for a reason, and the beauty of the judicial system is that it can change to meet the newer ideals and standards of life and society as they change.


----------



## Allen_A (Nov 18, 2013)

Squeakr said:


> blah blah blah





Squeakr said:


> blah blah blah





Squeakr said:


> blah blah blah





Squeakr said:


> blah blah blah





Squeakr said:


> This argument is a fruitful as arguing that an EA, sexting, porn viewing, or online chatting is considered truly an A. Several will say yes, and others no, but even with good arguments and supporting evidence, people will still believe the way they want to , so there is no reason to continue to belittle, swear, and insult them (of which you have resorted to but I have not done yet) because they don't agree.


YOU are just as insulting as anyone else here is.

You can claim withholding sex is abuse all you want to, but all evidence from the authorities that decide what is and is not abuse is against you.

Again, if you want to change the world, good luck with that.


----------



## Allen_A (Nov 18, 2013)

Thor said:


> Man, you are so stuck in the legal authority defining a psychological condition.


I may be stuck in the real world of law and how abuse is applied in practice, but no more than you guys are stuck in the ivory tower defining terms to meet your agenda and ignoring how the terms are actually used in practice.

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


----------



## Squeakr (May 1, 2013)

Allen,
Like I thought, don't read anything as you may get enlightened or start to see a different point of view (not staying it will or should change your perceptions but may allow you to understand what someone else is trying to say and how they view things), and just continue to insult, belittle and act childish. That is the type of attitude that I would expect from someone so closed minded about things they don't agree with.


----------



## Squeakr (May 1, 2013)

Allen_A said:


> I may be stuck in the real world of law and how abuse is applied in practice,


That may be how it is applied in legal practice, but doesn't mean it is the same in matters of the psychological nature. they are 2 different entity and not everything is wrapped in the legal side.

How about this for a theological question:

Is it illegal to possess, take, and/or abuse drugs that are not deemed illegal in the eyes of the law? (Think about all of the designer and performance enhancing drugs, ahem Lance Armstrong ahem, and whether possessing, abusing, or taking them is against the law and convictable offense(s) if they are not directly cited and deemed illegal anywhere in the law statutes?)


----------



## Allen_A (Nov 18, 2013)

Squeakr said:


> Allen,
> Like I thought, don't read anything as you may get enlightened or start to see a different point of view (not staying it will or should change your perceptions but may allow you to understand what someone else is trying to say and how they view things), and just continue to insult, belittle and act childish. That is the type of attitude that I would expect from someone so closed minded about things they don't agree with.


All I did was use the SAME TACTICS you did.. and of course you just IGNORED that fact and accuse me of being childish.

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

I had DELIBERATELY DUPLICATED EXACTLY your wording and I get called childish by you lol

You need to look in the mirror and recognize your OWN WORDS when they are sent back to you lol

How obtuse can you get?? lol


----------



## Allen_A (Nov 18, 2013)

Squeakr said:


> That may be how it is applied in legal practice, but doesn't mean it is the same in matters of the psychological nature. they are 2 different entity and not everything is wrapped in the legal side.
> )


Psychologists TESTIFY in COURTS dude.

Psychologists are ASSIGNED by JUDGES.

You REALLY need to get informed.


----------



## Allen_A (Nov 18, 2013)

Squeakr said:


> How about this for a theological question:
> 
> Is it illegal to possess, take, and/or abuse drugs that are not deemed illegal in the eyes of the law? (Think about all of the designer and performance enhancing drugs, ahem Lance Armstrong ahem, and whether possessing, abusing, or taking them is against the law and convictable offense(s) if they are not directly cited and deemed illegal anywhere in the law statutes?)


I can buy aspirin at the store and shove the whole bottle down someone's throat.

The former is legal, the second is NOT.

How you USE drugs is a legal matter as much as buying or possessing them is.

If you want to argue that the abuse laws ought to be CHANGED then argue that.

But don't try to tell me withholding sex IS abuse, it's NOT even a close call.

If you think the law OUGHT to EXPAND the definitions and applications of the term then go for it.

I would probably STILL disagree with you given the slippery slope this introduces, but at least the argument would be cogent.


----------



## russell28 (Apr 17, 2013)

If your spouse is witholding sex, and you want sex, leave the marriage. Don't use alimony as an excuse to lie and cheat. You chose to marry this person, now you need to choose to get out in a civil manner and not in a way that is hurtful and abusive. 

To summarize, withholding sex to abuse a partner is bad, and you should get out of that abusive relationship if you want to stop being abused. If the partners agree that no sex is okay, then there is no problem. No scenario makes it 'okay' to cheat, even if you introduce alimony or finances. Saying you can't do the right thing because it'll cost more money doesn't make doing the wrong thing right. 

One partner wants sex, the other doesn't: Divorce

Both partners don't want sex: All good

Lie and Cheat: Never a good reason, don't do it. Take the high road even if it cost you a few bucks.


----------



## Allen_A (Nov 18, 2013)

russell28 said:


> Saying you can't do the right thing because it'll cost more money doesn't make doing the wrong thing right.


:iagree: :iagree: :iagree:

Conscience is rarely the cheapest product on the shelf. But it's always the best.


----------



## Squeakr (May 1, 2013)

Allen_A said:


> Psychologists TESTIFY in COURTS dude.
> 
> Psychologists are ASSIGNED by JUDGES.
> 
> You REALLY need to get informed.


Just because they go and testify in court or assigned has nothing to do with their legal standings. They are asked to be present and present their professional opinion of something based upon observational findings. This doesn't have anything to do if whether they agree or even know the terms of the law as it applies to the subject. They are presenting their opinions based upon their knowledge of their field and not their legal knowledge (this is why testimony can and many times does get refuted or thrown out in court).

So what do I need to get informed about.


----------



## Allen_A (Nov 18, 2013)

Squeakr said:


> Just because they go and testify in court or assigned has nothing to do with their legal standings. They are asked to be present and present their professional opinion of something based upon observational findings. This doesn't have anything to do if whether they agree or even know the terms of the law as it applies to the subject. They are presenting their opinions based upon their knowledge of their field and not their legal knowledge (this is why testimony can and many times does get refuted or thrown out in court).
> .


OK, so more to the point, they don't even decide if a case is abuse or not they just testify. lol

Judges decide what is abuse, not psychologists.

Your point then is made for me.

Thank you. :rofl:


----------



## Squeakr (May 1, 2013)

Allen_A said:


> *All I did was use the SAME TACTICS you did.*. and of course you just IGNORED that fact and accuse me of being childish.
> 
> *That is the most ignorant and biased assessment of a post I have ever read on this forum to date.
> *
> ...


Exactly what I am talking about. You make outrageous and exaggerated claims that have nothing to do with the topic being discussed, argue points and not discuss them, belittle, swear at posters, purposely make condescending remarks and statements, and then resort to name calling. That is childish behavior and why I said you were childish. It was not a tactic, but then again what would I know as I am always wrong according to you, correct?

Yes I know those were close to my words (I used the word rant as well and did keep portions of your paragraphs, so not EXACTLY my same words as you claim you used), but I at least read your statement and then intelligently commented on it and didn't just create quotes of blah blah blah and go of on a childish tirade, belittle you, swear at you, and be condescending. 


I give.. You win. Do you now feel better, or are you going to find a new way to belittle, insult, and condescend as I no longer wish to engage you. Their is no discussion with you, just you going on about how you are right and never looking at the whole picture and then insulting everyone that doesn't agree with you and jump on your bandwagon. I will know retreat to my ivory tower as you say I live in since I don't agree with you (just another example of your childish behavior, which you claim others need to look in a mirror to see their wrongs, time to get a mirror yourself).


----------



## Squeakr (May 1, 2013)

Allen_A said:


> OK, so more to the point, they don't even decide if a case is abuse or not they just testify. lol
> 
> Judges decide what is abuse, not psychologists.
> 
> ...



No Judges decide what is against the law or illegal. Just because psychologists might think it and find it was abuse according to their definitions, a judge has the final say if it is when considered against the legal terminology of the statues. Like I said 2 different viewpoints doesn't make one less valid, just determines if one is subject to penalties and punishment or not within the terms of the law (and doesn't make the other completely invalid). :scratchhead:


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

Thor said:


> Is there any room for abuse to be defined by the person it happened to? Is there any room to make a diagnosis based on the symptoms of the patient?


This is exactly how it is done, to some extent. It is rightly done this way in my opinion. However, it opens wide the door to mistakes and falsifications. The trouble is, I don't and I doubt anyone here wants a woman or man for that matter, to be in an abusive relationship and not be protected under the law. Therein lies the reason I stated, marriage is a dangerous proposition. Either men or women, by the wide ranging definitions and ability to choose, rightly so, what abuse is, may be in danger of breaking the law. 

I'm not certain, because I haven't applied it while reading threads, but I do think a case could be made for abuse of a spouse in many threads in CWI and SIM, by these rules and laws. It's really quite concerning.


----------



## Allen_A (Nov 18, 2013)

Squeakr said:


> Exactly what I am talking about. You make outrageous and exaggerated claims that have nothing to do with the topic being discussed, argue points and not discuss them, belittle, swear at posters, purposely make condescending remarks and statements, and then resort to name calling. That is childish behavior and why I said you were childish. It was not a tactic, but then again what would I know as I am always wrong according to you, correct?


And you make just as many outragous and exaggerated claims that have nothing to do with the topic. LOOK in the MIRROR.

I have NEVER swore at any poster on this forum, again more EXAGGERATED claims by YOU.

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

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

All I did was say "blah blah blah" JUST like YOU DID.

LOOK in the MIRROR buddy.



Squeakr said:


> Yes I know those were close to my words (I used the word rant as well and did keep portions of your paragraphs, so not EXACTLY my same words as you claim you used),


YES they are exaclty your words.. blah blah blah is what you used and I mirrored it.



Squeakr said:


> but I at least read your statement and then intelligently commented on it and didn't just create quotes of blah blah blah and go of on a childish tirade, belittle you, swear at you, and be condescending.


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

And again I don't swear at anyone on here. Nice try.

you really should be in politics, thats the only place for this nonsense you spew out when you have been refuted. You get refuted and rather than gracefully acknowledging it you resort to what you call "childish remarks" not unlike a temper tantrum. Pretty typical stuff. You can't argue clean, so you resort to personal attacks. You really ought to see someone about that.



Squeakr said:


> I give.. You win. ...I will know retreat to my ivory tower as you say I live in .


Of course, retreat to your tower rather than entering the real world with the rest of us. Why am I not surprised you would retreat there rather than burning it to the ground and living in the real world.


----------



## Allen_A (Nov 18, 2013)

Squeakr said:


> No Judges decide what is against the law or illegal. Just because psychologists might think it and find it was abuse according to their definitions, a judge has the final say if it is when considered against the legal terminology of the statues. Like I said 2 different viewpoints doesn't make one less valid, just determines if one is subject to penalties and punishment or not within the terms of the law (and doesn't make the other completely invalid). :scratchhead:


YES, that' what I SAID. JUDGES decide what is and is not abuse. lol

You are just re-iterating my point now lol

The judges viewpoint is THE viewpoint... by LAW. SO YA, one of them IS more valid, by LAW.

The psychologist's view is just testimony, to be accepted or rejected by the judge. The JUDGE makes the decision. lol

I don't know why you keep arguing yourself into corners like this.

We have already made it crystal clear withholding sex is not abuse a LONG time ago. lol


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

Allen, 

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

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

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

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

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

It's just one more thing in the long list of modern society's battle against marriage and the procreation of the species. It seems the law is stacked against commitment and monogamy.


----------



## Squeakr (May 1, 2013)

Allen_A said:


> I didn't assert I had any "right to limit the definition".. that's how the *damn* word is USED man.
> 
> I don't need to be a *damn* lawyer to read social services abuse definitions.


Swearing. Don't think so try to use those words at a judge in a court and see if you are not warned. Damn is a swear word.



Allen_A said:


> Originally Posted by Squeakr View Post
> Yes I know those were close to my words (I used the word rant as well and did keep portions of your paragraphs, so not EXACTLY my same words as you claim you used),
> YES they are exaclty your words.. blah blah blah is what you used and I mirrored it.


Like I said close to my words as I also used the word rant, even admitting it in the passage you quoted, but you missed that as well.



Allen_A said:


> I can call withholding sex a banana if I want to, but that does not make withholding sex a banana.
> 
> Pretty typical stuff. You can't argue clean, so you resort to personal attacks. You really ought to see someone about that.
> 
> ...


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

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

You talk about cogent discussions, but you create arguments and not discussions so why not follow your own advice?


----------



## Squeakr (May 1, 2013)

Allen_A said:


> We have already made it crystal clear withholding sex is not abuse a LONG time ago. lol


It was never made "crystal clear" at anytime. The only thing made clear was (and I agreed with this as well) that by your terminology and definition within the statues of the law, you see it not as abuse and that it can't as it appears within the law statutes be legally punished under the current legal system. That still however does not make it not to be considered abuse by those within the medical and psychological professions. It just means it is not punishable under the law. Several of the flags of abuse , as I pointed out earlier, are not against the law but would be something that would be considered abuse.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

I'm not sure I agree with that, Squeakr.

I thought anything on that list could be used in a court of law to determine eligibility for an order of protection. Maybe I'm mistaken?


----------



## Thor (Oct 31, 2011)

Allen_A said:


> I may be stuck in the real world of law and how abuse is applied in practice, but no more than you guys are stuck in the ivory tower defining terms to meet your agenda and ignoring how the terms are actually used in practice.
> 
> I can call withholding sex a banana if I want to, but that does not make withholding sex a banana.


Context is everything when it comes to abuse. And I truly do not care one whit what the legal definition is. I am concerned about the human psychological impact.

What is a loving beautiful sex act in one context is unspeakably abusive in another context. Again, I don't give a rat's a$$ what the legal evaluation of the context is.

Professional, experienced, Ph.D. Clinical Psychologists are to me the arbiter in any specific case whether or not abuse is happening. The overall context of the events may or may not be abusive. Just because it is not legally prosecutable as abusive does not mean a person was not abused.


----------



## Thor (Oct 31, 2011)

Allen_A said:


> YES, that' what I SAID. JUDGES decide what is and is not abuse. lol


So if a parent believes his child was sexually abused, he should consult with a judge to first determine if abuse occurred. Then if the judge says so, the parent takes his child to a psychologist and *informs* the psychologist that abuse occurred. It would be wrong for a parent to consult a psychologist to get the psychologist's opinion on whether abuse occurred and thus if psychotherapy for the child would be advisable.

Because judges know if something was abuse and psychologists don't.


----------



## Allen_A (Nov 18, 2013)

Squeakr said:


> Swearing. Don't think so try to use those words at a judge in a court and see if you are not warned. Damn is a swear word.


I used the word damn?

God forbid!!! 

:rofl:

Sorry to hurt your delicate feelings by invoking such an atrocious word.

:rofl:

People use the word damn all the damn time. Get used to it.


----------



## Allen_A (Nov 18, 2013)

Thor said:


> Because judges know if something was abuse and psychologists don't.


According to the LAW yes, that's correct. The judge has the final say on the matter.


----------



## Allen_A (Nov 18, 2013)

Thor said:


> Just because it is not legally prosecutable as abusive does not mean a person was not abused.


Ya, by law that is exactly what it means.

It may not mean they are or are not "thor-abused", but it does mean by law (with supporting expert opinions) they are or are not recognized as abused.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

I believe the problem comes in when we think. haha What I mean is, if there is real reason to believe someone is abused, the guidelines can be used to help determine if further evaluation is in order. It sort of harkens back to what I wrote about having an attorney and a psychologist in your back pocket, doesn't it?


----------



## Blossom Leigh (Mar 27, 2014)

Allen_A said:


> Either you maintain dignity and respect for
> 
> a. your spouse
> b. your family
> ...


This is huge in my book... preserving dignity and should be practiced in so many ways... my breaking point was this past year and I didn't fair so well, but I continue to strive for best integrity in preserving dignity for myself and those I love.


----------



## Allen_A (Nov 18, 2013)

Squeakr said:


> That still however does not make it not to be considered abuse by those within the medical and psychological professions. It just means it is not punishable under the law. Several of the flags of abuse , as I pointed out earlier, are not against the law but would be something that would be considered abuse.


People in professions that aren't authorized to make those decisions you mean.. lol

I can declare someone a psychopath if I wanted to, it is a fruitless exercise since I am not authorized to make that kind of diagnosis...

_You can consider something abuse if you want to, but it's contrary to all evidence on the subject of abuse by those who have the authority to declare something as abuse._

I can declare myself a lotto winner too.. my bank won't reflect that..


----------



## Allen_A (Nov 18, 2013)

My primary concern for this "withholding sex = abuse" business is the slippery slope that argument creates.

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

You would be legislating rape in some cases.

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

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

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

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

So, I would be rejecting that bill and erring on the side of caution.


----------



## Blossom Leigh (Mar 27, 2014)

There was a point in my life where a man withholding sex from me "could" have been used in a way to be psychologically abusive.

And though I know it would have been possible with me depending on circumstances... legislating it would be so difficult and yes would have to protect victims from those who were intent on rape.


----------



## Allen_A (Nov 18, 2013)

Blossom Leigh said:


> There was a point in my life where a man withholding sex from me "could" have been used in a way to be psychologically abusive.
> 
> And though I know it would have been possible with me depending on circumstances... legislating it would be so difficult and yes would have to protect victims from those who were intent on rape.


Yup, I honestly don't think you could legislate this without that backfiring on some women in an ugly way. In an ugly way that I want no part in legislating... I wouldn't be able to sleep at night knowing my name was at all involved in that law.

While a sexless marriage is devastating, hurtful, and sad, I don't think I could ever advocate a law to punish people who didn't put out. Just too much ugly fallout from that situation to even think about.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

Many of those actions defined as abuse in the link are slippery slopes at best. I think that is necessary due to the denial of the abuser. I do agree that there are some cases which cannot be denied, many, in fact. 

Again, if you are married or in a relationship, you are well advised to keep an attorney and a psychologist, pretty much, on retainer. It's become the new, "utility", like paying for water or electricity. It's, pretty much, a necessity today.


----------



## Squeakr (May 1, 2013)

2ntnuf said:


> I'm not sure I agree with that, Squeakr.
> 
> I thought anything on that list could be used in a court of law to determine eligibility for an order of protection. Maybe I'm mistaken?


Yes, I agree, but not all are punishable actions in themselves. The charge that was filed based upon that action would be the punishable offense, such as you would be charged with domestic violence or an order of protection, and not direct and fearful staring which is the action that caused the order to be issued.


----------



## LongWalk (Apr 4, 2013)

There are men who rape there wives. Reading this story about woman shot her estranged husband dead in a marina parking lot has ring of truth to it.

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

The government chooses not to get into the sex lives of citizens. Marriage is what you make of it.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

Squeakr said:


> Yes, I agree, but not all are punishable actions in themselves. The charge that was filed based upon that action would be the punishable offense, such as you would be charged with domestic violence or an order of protection, and not direct and fearful staring which is the action that caused the order to be issued.


They change the name so it's a legal term that is commonly used and defined by law and then put a note that says this and that were going on? I think that makes sense. Thanks.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

LongWalk said:


> There are men who rape there wives. Reading this story about woman shot her estranged husband dead in a marina parking lot has ring of truth to it.
> 
> So I agree with Allen that *compelling* sex is not possible. That is also why lawmakers no longer support divorce in which adultery is cause for fault.
> 
> The government chooses not to get into the sex lives of citizens. Marriage is what you make of it.


I didn't understand that term describing the type of sex. "compelling" Does that mean someone says, "you have to have sex with me due to the vows, my fist, a gun, a knife, if you want more allowance or that new lionel train set, etc.?


----------



## Squeakr (May 1, 2013)

Allen_A said:


> I used the word damn?
> 
> God forbid!!!
> 
> ...


See there you go again with the condescension and belittling as well. I never said I was hurt anywhere, just that I never swore at you and you did swear at me and I didn't appreciate it, but that is okay continue to read into this something else that you want to but was never stated/ said. 

The added snide comment, like I have been stating all along was unnecessary and nothing more than you continuing on with your superiority ideals. You could have left it off, but once again felt the need to get the jab in and follow up with the emoticon, childish behavior exhibited well and my point proven to a tee. 

Whether that word is used lots or not, it is still swearing which you said you never did. I was in the military and people used much worse words lots all the time, does that make it acceptable since it was done constantly? No! Don't admit any wrong on your part though, for swearing or being proven wrong and just make it all my issue and short coming as it is just revealing your true nature and personality.


----------



## Squeakr (May 1, 2013)

Allen_A said:


> People in professions that aren't authorized to make those decisions you mean.. lol
> 
> I can declare someone a psychopath if I wanted to, it is a fruitless exercise since I am not authorized to make that kind of diagnosis...
> 
> ...


So whom has this so called mythical authority? lol :rofl:

Those professionals have the authority within the bounds of their respective professions for which they are trained and licensed top make those judgements. They just can't prosecute.


So if someone is abused by actions that are definite flags and signs of abuse within the legal definition but is found not guilty of the offense by reason of some defense lawyer magic or a loophole in the system, does that mean that the abuse never happened? According to the law and legal system, which is the definitive authority, the abuser was not able to be charged or defined as abusive and thus was found not guilty and all records of the action must be removed. I would bet the victim and several others would still feel that there was abuse but the law says otherwise.


----------



## Allen_A (Nov 18, 2013)

Squeakr said:


> So if someone is abused by actions that are definite flags and signs of abuse within the legal definition but is found not guilty of the offense by reason of some defense lawyer magic or a loophole in the system, does that mean that the abuse never happened? According to the law and legal system, which is the definitive authority, the abuser was not able to be charged or defined as abusive and thus was found not guilty and all records of the action must be removed. I would bet the victim and several others would still feel that there was abuse but the law says otherwise.


It means the defendant was found not guilty.

Didn't you study law at least in high school? lol

They can feel whatever way they want to. If there's not enough evidence to convict, that's the tragedy of the legal system... guilty people DO go free, that's by design. The first priority is ensuring no innocents end up in prison, the guilty getting punished comes in second...


----------



## Allen_A (Nov 18, 2013)

Squeakr said:


> I never said I was hurt anywhere, just that I never swore at you and you did swear at me and I didn't appreciate it, but that is okay continue to read into this something else that you want to but was never stated/ said.


Saying "damn" isn't' swearing AT someone.. you really need to thicken up your skin if your feathers are gonna get ruffled whenever anyone uses the word "damn." It's on every TV channel these days... 

Heck people teach their parrots to say "damn." lol

You read into things stuff I don't say, .. so... pot-kettle.


----------



## Squeakr (May 1, 2013)

An interesting thought I had after all the back and forth about abuse and what it is was actually in the legal system. From my research, and I would love to have someone correct if this is wrong, please be trained in a legal associated profession to stop all the speculation, but abuse is a concept covering behaviors and actions and not actually a convictable crime, meaning that there is no abuse crime charge in existence.
From what I have seen in my research is that no one can actually be convicted of the charge of abuse, not saying it doesn't exist, just that it is not a criminal offense but a concept on behaviors and actions. When the abuse occurs, the abuser is charged with a crime based upon the abusive actions, such as domestic violence, better, assault, neglect, etc. Since by this logic something could be considered abuse and yet not currently have a convictable crime associated with it, does this mean that it fails to be defined solely by the legal system then, since no crime of abuse exists.

I admit I could be wrong in this but have never heard anyone actually charged with the crime of abuse. Is there an actual criminal offense that carries a named charge of "abuse"?? I am truly interested in find out out as I couldn't find one in my research, although I know I missed lots.


----------



## Squeakr (May 1, 2013)

Allen_A said:


> It means the defendant was found not guilty.
> 
> Didn't you study law at least in high school? lol
> 
> They can feel whatever way they want to. If there's not enough evidence to convict, that's the tragedy of the legal system... guilty people DO go free, that's by design. The first priority is ensuring no innocents end up in prison, the guilty getting punished comes in second...


I know thats what it means, but the charges will be removed and everything erased so does that mean it wasn't abuse as well?? 

Thanks again Mr. Snide Remark, I haven't seen you in a while!! :rofl:


----------



## Allen_A (Nov 18, 2013)

It's usually a subset of child abuse, physical abuse, emotional abuse, sexual abuse, etc...

Your case you are arguing would likely fall under emotional abuse.


----------



## Allen_A (Nov 18, 2013)

Squeakr said:


> I know thats what it means, but the charges will be removed and everything erased so does that mean it wasn't abuse as well??


It means the case was dropped... that's what a dropped case means... you really are treading on metaphysics now. lol


----------



## nuclearnightmare (May 15, 2013)

Emptyshelldad said:


> I see a lot about people saying he doesn't know what he talks about. Forget him. Look just at the issues he raises and let's open a dialogue about them here where we tam'ers might have a better touch with the real world of infidelity.
> 
> I myself was not in any type of a sexless relationship. But I wouldn't be in one for long. Though I do think ID be much more susceptible to an affair if I was in a sexless relationship. ID stay thinking we will work it out, but it's like starving a person when they should get their food only from you. They may stay and try to work it out but they will be much more likely to be tempted when a fresh steak is wafted under their nose.
> 
> ...


Empty:

I have read many of your posts and find your story compelling. No, no one is immune to having an affair, or perhaps one could say very, very few people are immune. But I am curious in your case in particular - would you call your wife, say, a "morally upstanding" person in the time before her affair, right as it was happening, or now? your description of her does not put her in the moral gutter per se, but it would also be hard for me to categorize her as a person of "high moral character" - based on how she treated you.

I'm not being rhetorical....you obviously know her and I don't really. its just that I have a bit of a theory that if a person has a certain (difficult to define exactly) level of moral character then their likelihood of cheating becomes quite small. if their character falls below that level however the chance of them cheating not only increases, but perhaps even rapidly. essentially Im hypothesizing that character can save the day, but we're talking a susbstantial level.....i.e. not 'average cvharacter.' so it might be that we overestimate the character of others (i.e. you your wife) and also our own character.


----------



## Squeakr (May 1, 2013)

Allen_A said:


> Saying "damn" isn't' swearing AT someone.. you really need to thicken up your skin if your feathers are gonna get ruffled whenever anyone uses the word "damn." It's on every TV channel these days...
> 
> Heck people teach their parrots to say "damn." lol
> 
> You read into things stuff I don't say, .. so... pot-kettle.


You need to learn how to read, as I even stated prior that I was not hurt or such, yet there you go still claiming I am. You know nothing about me yet you are drawing conclusions from no where. I just stated I never swore and you did. Then I proved it with your quotes. People teach their birds to say lots of words, doesn't make it any more acceptable. There are other words on most channels these days such as the b word to mention one, but that doesn't make it more acceptable either.


----------



## Squeakr (May 1, 2013)

Allen_A said:


> It means the case was dropped... that's what a dropped case means... you really are treading on metaphysics now. lol


No, because the all to real pain was inflicted and possibly the scars will remain, and it would be all too real for the victim. So what would we call it that the victim experienced as it couldn't be abuse as that possibility was removed in a court?? :scratchhead:


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

Good point, but I wonder at the same time, when I read threads where I know the BS has symptoms of PTSD. Maybe it's traumatic stress?

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

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

Hurt = feelings hurt

Generally, my definitions.


----------



## Allen_A (Nov 18, 2013)

Squeakr said:


> No, because the all to real pain was inflicted and possibly the scars will remain, and it would be all too real for the victim. So what would we call it that the victim experienced as it couldn't be abuse as that possibility was removed in a court?? :scratchhead:


Take your pick, lots of words out there...


----------



## Thor (Oct 31, 2011)

Allen_A said:


> Ya, by law that is exactly what it means.
> 
> It may not mean they are or are not "thor-abused", but it does mean by law (with supporting expert opinions) they are or are not recognized as abused.



So a qualified Clinical Psychologist is not qualified to make a psychological diagnosis of abuse?


----------



## Thor (Oct 31, 2011)

Squeakr said:


> So whom has this so called mythical authority? lol :rofl:
> 
> Those professionals have the authority within the bounds of their respective professions for which they are trained and licensed top make those judgements. They just can't prosecute.
> 
> ...


The man who repeatedly sexually mistreated my wife was never prosecuted. Certainly he mistreated dozens more little girls. But absent a conviction we can't say these girls were abused? The constellation of symptoms my wife has suffered for nearly 50 years are textbook for child sex abuse victims, but no psychologist upon evaluating her could make a clinical declaration she was abused?

As you have said more clearly than I, the legal arena is but one definition of abuse, related to criminal prosecution based on specific legal definitions. It has nothing to do with what a shrink or doc or clergyman would determine based on their arenas.

A judge can convict but not treat. A psychologist can treat but not imprison. A pastor can counsel and excommunicate but not prescribe medications.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

Thor, I agree with that. At issue for me is, if it's the well educated and experienced psychologist that defines the cause of evident trauma, abuse, then it should be an offense addressed by the law, under the same rules(laws) established for standard domestic violence and abuse.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

In which case, I believe the definitions of domestic violence need to be addressed at regular intervals and defined by a team of doctors and lawyers, then, lawmakers, to establish reliable, standard practices for use in life. It doesn't make any sense to believe that something can possibly be used, if well, but that can be, or but it didn't. No, there needs to be an adjustment. 

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

Obviously, just my opinion.


----------



## Thor (Oct 31, 2011)

2ntnuf said:


> Thor, I agree with that. At issue for me is, if it's the well educated and experienced psychologist that defines the cause of evident trauma, abuse, then it should be an offense addressed by the law, under the same rules(laws) established for standard domestic violence and abuse.



I disagree. Just because something was abusive doesn't mean it should go to court. Not everything needs to or should be brought into the legal arena.

Now if we are talking about child sex abuse or other abuses of children, bring the perps to court and give them the harshest punishment possible. But if we're talking about adults I just don't see it being possible to bring every case to court. There are so many shades of gray on all sides of the issue.


----------



## Squeakr (May 1, 2013)

Thor said:


> I disagree. Just because something was abusive doesn't mean it should go to court. Not everything needs to or should be brought into the legal arena.
> 
> Now if we are talking about child sex abuse or other abuses of children, bring the perps to court and give them the harshest punishment possible. But if we're talking about adults I just don't see it being possible to bring every case to court. There are so many shades of gray on all sides of the issue.


I see your point, but I believe that the key word here is* trauma* as that is not just something that is a red flag to certain abuse, such as extreme jealousy, which in itself may be an abuse but may or may not be something that puts mental and physical health at risk for the abused in this case.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

Thor said:


> I disagree. Just because something was abusive doesn't mean it should go to court. Not everything needs to or should be brought into the legal arena.
> 
> Now if we are talking about child sex abuse or other abuses of children, bring the perps to court and give them the harshest punishment possible. But if we're talking about adults I just don't see it being possible to bring every case to court. There are so many shades of gray on all sides of the issue.


One type of abuse will cause the same mental trauma as another. This can be proven by a psychologist. It's the mental trauma that lasts, long after the physical wounds have healed. Sometimes there are no physical wounds, but the person is broken. 

We really do disagree here.


----------



## Thor (Oct 31, 2011)

Some people are legitimately traumatized by seemingly minor things, while others are not traumatized yet have experienced much worse things. Psychologists or other qualified professionals should treat anyone who suffers emotional or psychological malady, but it would be very dangerous to prosecute people based on if a person was traumatized or not.

I know one woman who suffers from significant trauma which is described as child sex abuse, yet the events would be considered quite typical and normal for a child growing up in Europe. She needs therapy but the "perp" doesn't deserve punishment.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

I hear you. You think it's too subjective to label as abuse and make punishable by law? If so, that worries me. It opens wide the door for as much mental and emotional abuse as a person can dish out. 

"Hey, so and so, could take it. Why can't you?" See, the abuse is generally defined by the abused, not the abuser. We have to be careful not to set the abused up for further harm.


----------



## missthelove2013 (Sep 23, 2013)

do young people actually get married, with the delusion that sex and passion will remain for the rest of their lives??

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

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

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

once men FINALLY realize this, I think marriage will go the way of the dodo bird...


----------



## Thor (Oct 31, 2011)

But the reverse is also possible. Someone who is weak or was previously traumatized could have a strong reaction to something which reasonable people would find not abusive. Should the suspect be convicted of abuse?

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

I am all for there being legal standards under which abuse can be prosecuted. Especially if a child is the victim, in which case the harshest punishments should be applied. But I think there should be very different and much more flexible guidelines for therapists to reference when treating people.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

This is where we disagree. I cannot condone the abuse. I cannot defend it. I had a long response written and felt it was starting to defend the abuser. I don't like that at all. 

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

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

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

So, why is that a punishable offense? Do you think, by what you stated, that it should not be, because some people will just tell the husband to go right ahead and get it over with? Others may cry their eyes out.


----------



## Thor (Oct 31, 2011)

Honestly I've never heard of it being punishable as abuse to make a threat of suicide.

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

As far as I am aware, our current laws seem to cover abuse pretty well. I don't want to expand the reach of the law into the psychologist's office. But I also don't want psychologists to be limited to definitions used in the prosecution of criminals.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

It is in my state, Thor. Maybe some others, it's not. I can only speak about what I know of in my own state. 

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

I do think that it is best to define things more accurately. That's more my position on this than anything. Define it and eliminate the gray areas, as much as possible.


----------



## Hopeful Cynic (Apr 27, 2014)

I have to confess that the last few pages of this thread kind of blurred together for me. There are some very black and white definitions being thrown around, and this is probably because people are filtering through their own experiences. An argument where people are using different definitions is never going to be resolved.

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

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

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

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

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

To make it more personal...

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

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

So, was the marriage sexless? Was there infidelity? Where was the abuse? Who broke the marriage vows? When did the cheating spouse stop respecting the faithful spouse?


----------



## Thor (Oct 31, 2011)

Hopeful Cynic said:


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


There are two marriage contracts. One is the verbal contract made in front of witnesses. These are the wedding vows. Usually they include "To Have and To Hold". The clause "To Have" means to have sex with. The clause "To Hold" means to provide comfort, such as hugging or the emotional equivalent of hugging even if there is no physical hug.

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

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

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

Then there is the 2nd contract. This is the one imposed by the State. The laws dictate the marriage contract. What are the grounds for annulment, divorce, alimony? This is an entirely different set of rules than the marriage vows. These rules change whenever the legislature writes a new law or a judge makes a new interpretation. These rules change when the couple moves to a new state or a new jurisdiction. In a No-Fault state, infidelity has zero bearing on the divorce and is not seen as a violation of any contract. There is no accounting for it in distribution of assets, alimony, or who gets to live in the house.


----------



## Emptyshelldad (Apr 29, 2013)

nuclearnightmare said:


> Empty:
> 
> I have read many of your posts and find your story compelling. No, no one is immune to having an affair, or perhaps one could say very, very few people are immune. But I am curious in your case in particular - would you call your wife, say, a "morally upstanding" person in the time before her affair, right as it was happening, or now? your description of her does not put her in the moral gutter per se, but it would also be hard for me to categorize her as a person of "high moral character" - based on how she treated you.
> 
> I'm not being rhetorical....you obviously know her and I don't really. its just that I have a bit of a theory that if a person has a certain (difficult to define exactly) level of moral character then their likelihood of cheating becomes quite small. if their character falls below that level however the chance of them cheating not only increases, but perhaps even rapidly. essentially Im hypothesizing that character can save the day, but we're talking a susbstantial level.....i.e. not 'average cvharacter.' so it might be that we overestimate the character of others (i.e. you your wife) and also our own character.



I agree that a certain type of very moral person might not have an affair, but that a person like this is so rare, that you'd be wrong way way more than you'd be right. I've seen so many very very moral people fall into affairs because of the very nature of human beings. It's so easy to want to do things that are easy, and feel good. 

In my wife's case, however, she is a very upstanding person. I know everyone says that their spouse was never the type. But I'm talking about my own father, who has had three wives and so many girlfriends......that all eventually became unfaithful.....so he is so so damned cynical. Even he was always pointing out how my wife was the singular case he could think of as a redeeming factor. He would tell his friends that she is the one woman who makes him hold out hope for marriages. So when he was the first person to see me and know about it, like three hours after I found out and before I confronted......he was so shocked......we left the house......and he broke down crying horribly......

So she just is not at all the type. She taught Sunday school for the little ones on Sunday. 

I also think that it is dependent on how much you are being chased. It's a well known Fact that usually men have to really try to step out, and women just have to say yes to one of the many onslaughts of advances they receive. Take celebrities for example or male sports athletes. They have a horrible rate of infidelity. Because they only need to have one weak day....on weak minute.....It seems that many men when given an on demand source of women, struggle with faithfulness. so a lot of people who can say they have always been moral in this area, also do so from a position of just never having committed the act. They haven't been tested hard. By having beautiful women throw themselves at you day after day every hour. All you would need is one minute where a woman trying to take your belt off and you just don't stop her hard enough.....and then it's too late. 

So I think there is a real concern with the idea that only certain people are susceptible to cheating. Under the right circumstances I believe most would cheat. But there are those who don't even need the right circumstances, they seek it out, or they don't guard against it. It's a slow, predatory approach.......that's how other man bedded my lady. He friended her first.....then compliments.......then playful flirting.......then.........light sexual innuendo.....then full sexual flirting .....then sexting.....then phone sex........then it culminates when I send my wife down for week vacation all by herself, no kids, no me, just her to see her father who is I'll with terminal cancer. She can hang with friends, she can shop, she can just unwind. I bought the ticket, had a very nice rental car waiting at the airport, took her shopping for several hundred dollars of new clothes ( after she had lost so much weight her old clothes hardly even fit anymore) and gave her a wad of cash for spending money. And I watched all the kids all week while taking my own week off of work. All the while thinking , "I'm being a great husband.....this will really make her feel special....etc etc". Instead she excitedly text her lover, to tell him how excited she was that both her father and her daddy would get to see her.


Sorry....kind of got off track with that one.


----------



## Emptyshelldad (Apr 29, 2013)

I hate to see the thread fall away and probably scare away others from posting by the constant back and fourth of the members arguing opinions on legal definitions. I think you've proved that neither will be swayed, and it's obvious that Allen A is firmly entrenched in his opinion, and he has a right to it, so let's just leave it at that shall we. 

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

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

Thoughts?


----------



## Emptyshelldad (Apr 29, 2013)

Hopeful Cynic said:


> I have to confess that the last few pages of this thread kind of blurred together for me. There are some very black and white definitions being thrown around, and this is probably because people are filtering through their own experiences. An argument where people are using different definitions is never going to be resolved.
> 
> First, interpretation of marriage vows. We vow fidelity. We also vow for it to be for better or for worse.
> To some, fidelity means "I will not have sex with other people." Having sex with the spouse is not automatically included. A sexless marriage is not breaking vows to someone who interprets it this way.
> ...



Hopeful, 
You raised good points, and I will try to respond once we are no longer moving. I can't type while the rig is moving, it's too tough for a point by point analysis that I believe a thought out response like your deserves. 
Welcome to the discussion. Thanks for joining.


----------



## nuclearnightmare (May 15, 2013)

Emptyshelldad said:


> I agree that a certain type of very moral person might not have an affair, but that a person like this is so rare, that you'd be wrong way way more than you'd be right. I've seen so many very very moral people fall into affairs because of the very nature of human beings. It's so easy to want to do things that are easy, and feel good.
> 
> In my wife's case, however, she is a very upstanding person. I know everyone says that their spouse was never the type. But I'm talking about my own father, who has had three wives and so many girlfriends......that all eventually became unfaithful.....so he is so so damned cynical. Even he was always pointing out how my wife was the singular case he could think of as a redeeming factor. He would tell his friends that she is the one woman who makes him hold out hope for marriages. So when he was the first person to see me and know about it, like three hours after I found out and before I confronted......he was so shocked......we left the house......and he broke down crying horribly......
> 
> ...


But in your case you didn't have a sexless marriage, correct? Sorry if I forgot some details. Did you ever consider the proposition that you had misjudged her character? And that her affair demonstrated that?


----------



## Emptyshelldad (Apr 29, 2013)

nuclearnightmare said:


> But in your case you didn't have a sexless marriage, correct? Sorry if I forgot some details. Did you ever consider the proposition that you had misjudged her character? And that her affair demonstrated that?




No my marriage was far from sexless. In fact the sex was great. She was never really that confidant with her body because she gained weight after we got together and despite my supporting her in every way she asked, she didn't ever lose any of it. 

She was 130 when we met and 21. Then she went to 197 lbs. she's 5'6 so it was a noticeable amount of weight gain. And there she stayed.....until at 30 she starts talking with other man. 

She then begins working out like a solid hour and a half every day. She eats super well, like spinach and lean chicken, no fatty foods, no desert etc. She drops to 135 in eight months. 

And she looks great. So her increased confidence from being a hotty again made our sex outstanding. It's only after I found out she lost it all for him that I began having trouble. 

Made much worse because as soon as she and other man were done, she starts gaining the weight back. She's back to up 178 or so. It's one off the main reasons I finally called it quits. I still care for her deeply but I can't be the guy whose wife lost weight for her lover cause he was worth the effort, but then put it all back on once husband was her main option. 

As far as character goes, no. I believe she has a great level if character. She is very fair etc. Not 
Ike a lot of ww I see, who aren't fair at All after a separation occurs. 

And it's not just me, everyone was totally shocked....I mean beyond belief......but that's because we have this incorrect idea of only bad people have affairs. People are weak...bet on that and you'll be right way more than you're wrong. 

But I believe our desire to demonize people who have an affair does not help our understanding and I believe leaves us open and more likely for this to happen to us again in the future. 

I believe a different understanding needs to be present in most relationships. One that any person could have an affair under the right circumstances. I believe people are very poor judges of their own character. Where they say "well I know I never would.." I often find this does not hold to real unbiased scrutiny. 

So for me, I'm learning to advocate being on the defensive against an affair happening. From even being tempted as such. By recognizing that as humans, we are imperfect by out very design and thus we must on the offense against affairs, lest we find ourselves in the depth of pain and despair again.


----------



## nuclearnightmare (May 15, 2013)

Empty:

I think it almost turns into a philosophical argument. I'll say though that few BH handle their situation as well as you did. My sense is you should not give her another chance, and perhaps tell her to expect the divorce to be permanent. Just IMO


----------



## LongWalk (Apr 4, 2013)

EmptyShelledDad,

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

Wasn't she very anxious to reconcile?

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

Someone commented that RDMU did not have sex with his wife for two years and that was the reason she cheated.


----------



## davecarter (Aug 15, 2013)

LongWalk said:


> EmptyShelledDad,
> 
> Did you ever tell your wife that the regained weight was disappointed you?
> 
> ...


My ex-W and I didnt have sex for 18 months...and before that it was 'functional-sex'.
Put this together with constant arguing and fighting, add a bit of an OM who took an interest, mix-it all up with more than just _"my-marriage-is-bad-and-here's-why_" and you have an affair, separation and divorce.


----------

