# Over, and over, and over, we read......



## TJW (Mar 20, 2012)

about marriages which are sexless, or for any practical purpose, sexless.

I want to know what your "take" on this is.....

My take is this:

If you are a spouse who doesn't want (yes, WANT) to have sex with your spouse, to the exclusion of anyone else on this entire planet, then:
you should do the HONORABLE thing, and GET OUT. Yes, OUT. And, at your own expense.

No alimony.
No spousal support.
No court fight.
Just divide the assets, and the debts, co-parent, and GET OUT.

You promised that you would "keep yourself only unto" your spouse. You promised that you were "forsaking all others". You promised this BEFORE GOD.

If you are not doing this, you better formulate a damn good answer for when God asks you, "why?". You're gonna need it.....


----------



## Livvie (Jan 20, 2014)

No, I heartily disagree.

I "didn't want" to have sex with my spouse at the time of the divorce, because he had betrayed me to the highest degree. 

His heinous treatment of me resulted in me not wanting him to touch me ever again.

If anyone needs to answer to "god" it's him.

You can't make a blanket statement like you did, because SOMETIMES a spouse gets turned off sexually by the other due to very poor treatment. Why should that person give up reasonable legal financial supports?

Edited to add: you also shouldn't assume that every marriage in the world is religious and made a promise before "god", that's a grossly incorrect assumption.


----------



## GC1234 (Apr 15, 2020)

I have gotten into moods of not wanting sex. It's generally for a couple of reasons: disgust with my husband over an argument; not helping around the house and being resentful; lack of passion after kids...I'm sure there's more.


----------



## badsanta (Oct 13, 2014)

TJW said:


> You promised that you would "keep yourself only unto" your spouse. You promised that you were "forsaking all others". You promised this BEFORE GOD.
> 
> If you are not doing this, you better formulate a damn good answer for when God asks you, "why?". You're gonna need it.....


_Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres._

Often people include those words in a wedding ceremony as it reflects the bible's idea of love. There are good times and bad times. 

...Now when you get into psychology you will understand that love and desire can not and will not be guaranteed. It is something that requires teamwork, patience, keeping calm, seeking the truth in knowing one another, and persevering. 

In my opinion we are all imperfect. I think god made us that way to be sure we really learn what it means to love. 

Regards, 
Badsanta


----------



## Ragnar Ragnasson (Mar 4, 2018)

Let's modify the OPs question, to allow different possible responses.

W: If you are said LD W, and you know you aren't mistreated, H is a pretty good, solid, in shape, kind, responsible person, 

and you refuse to have sex with H, although he flirts and initiates thoughtfully but you just don't want any of it, won't be sexual with H but you think it's ok. And you don't want to break up, but you want the life just uh, no sex......

Why not, and why would a W think that way, and why woulda W think that it's ok to think and be that way?

🙂 sorry to sidetrack a bit. I apologize in advance if this isn't included in the overall line of thoughts.


----------



## Livvie (Jan 20, 2014)

Ragnar Ragnasson said:


> Let's modify the OPs question, to allow different possible responses.
> 
> W: If you are said LD W, and you know you aren't mistreated, H is a pretty good, solid, in shape, kind, responsible person,
> 
> ...


Well, in this scenario, it's because she's a _selfish entitled person_ who just wants a free ride to the benefits of marriage without actually connecting with her spouse sexually, because she doesn't want to, and she doesn't care of he's happy or not.

I'm which case it's on _him_ for staying in that scenario. Just get out!


----------



## Personal (Jan 16, 2014)

@TJW you do know that not everyone promises anything to any god at all, when they get married? Since some of us are not convinced any gods exist.

It's also worth noting that some of us, don't have a problem with non-monogamous marriages either. So that exclusive sex idea, isn't a thing for all of us.

That said if you're not happy in your marriage, and aren't getting any. You're welcome to take responsibility for yourself, and end your marriage whenever you like.


----------



## nbk2tek (Sep 7, 2020)

Marriage is the business transaction of the relationship and like all transactions will have a cost and loss. Just be sure to find someone that believes what you believe.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

If she's not wanting sex with me, she is out unless I have been being a jerk.

Speaking of which, I've been slacking the last 3 weeks due to a number of things and only quenched her thirst. Once!
I have some catching up to do this afternoon!


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Livvie said:


> No, I heartily disagree.
> 
> I "didn't want" to have sex with my spouse at the time of the divorce, because he had betrayed me to the highest degree.
> 
> ...


I believe the OP was talking about spouses who aren't being a holes.


----------



## Livvie (Jan 20, 2014)

ConanHub said:


> I believe the OP was talking about spouses who aren't being a holes.


That wasn't clear in his original post, AND I'm betting everything in my checking account that there are men who have done things to their partner that anyone reasonable would find extremely damaging and a turn off--- but still complain about lack of sex like that poor treatment should not matter or be a factor in the lack of sex.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Livvie said:


> That wasn't clear in his original post, AND I'm betting everything in my checking account that there are men who have done things to their partner that anyone reasonable would find extremely damaging and a turn off--- but still complain about lack of sex like that poor treatment should not matter or be a factor in the lack of sex.


The OP is being treated quite poorly by his spouse in a number of ways so does not fit what you are talking about I believe.
You have a valid point but it isn't what the OP is talking about.

There are a lot of women who didn't do anything worth being denied but they are in sexless marriages as well.


----------



## waynejoey (Jun 8, 2018)

TJW said:


> about marriages which are sexless, or for any practical purpose, sexless.
> 
> I want to know what your "take" on this is.....
> 
> ...


My take is that we shouldn't quote God's existence in conjunction with satan's lies. Either you believe in God, and therefore the good news (gospel), and therefore you know God, and therefore you follow His commands, and therefore you operate within his design for marriage.

If you don't know God, then you do whatever you want... good luck

Let no man separate what God brought together. Couples in a sexless marriage needs to get their butts back in church and get to know Jesus, and then their marriage will flourish. Anything short of that is satan's handiwork.


----------



## Livvie (Jan 20, 2014)

ConanHub said:


> The OP is being treated quite poorly by his spouse in a number of ways so does not fit what you are talking about I believe.
> You have a valid point but it isn't what the OP is talking about.
> 
> There are a lot of women who didn't do anything worth being denied but they are in sexless marriages as well.


If OP is being treated quite poorly, he should get out of the relationship. Full stop.

OP inquired about people's opinions on his stance that: if you aren't attracted to your spouse/don't want to have sex with them, you should agree to a divorce with no spousal support awarded. My stance is that I cry ******** on that!! If you don't ever want to pay spousal support, don't stay in a long term marriage with someone who either DOESN'T WORK or who works but earns far less than you. That advice is the same no matter which gender you are.


----------



## lifeistooshort (Mar 17, 2013)

ConanHub said:


> I believe the OP was talking about spouses who aren't being a holes.


I think so too, but I also think there are times when a spouse either doesn't see or acknowledge their contribution to this dynamic.

I have observed that certain men seem to feel that the act of getting married entitles them to sex. Im sure there are women like this too,, but it's just struck me with men. 

But we all know that while sex is an integral part of marriage one has to make efforts beyond simply getting married.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Livvie said:


> If OP is being treated quite poorly, he should get out of the relationship. Full stop.
> 
> OP inquired about people's opinions on his stance that: if you aren't attracted to your spouse/don't want to have sex with them, you should agree to a divorce with no spousal support awarded. My stance is that I cry ****** on that!! If you don't ever want to pay spousal support, don't stay in a long term marriage with someone who either DOESN'T WORK or who works but earns far less than you. That advice is the same no matter which gender you are.


I guess knowing about the OP's situation gives me a wider angle.

Obviously there are more issues than sex at play, as there always are.


----------



## Ragnar Ragnasson (Mar 4, 2018)

lifeistooshort said:


> I think so too, but I also think there are times when a spouse either doesn't see or acknowledge their contribution to this dynamic.
> 
> I have observed that certain men seem to feel that the act of getting married entitles them to sex. Im sure there are women like this too,, but it's just struck me with men.
> 
> But we all know that while sex is an integral part of marriage one has to make efforts beyond simply getting married.


'Cause we all know that getting M automatically provides a guy with sex all the time, automatically and it's a sure thing !
A little humor. 🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂


----------



## Young at Heart (Jan 6, 2015)

TJW said:


> ......I want to know what your "take" on this is.....
> 
> My take is this:
> 
> ...


Since I have been on the non-receiving end of that bed, let me provide a little context.

First I had a wife who had some sexual hangups prior to marriage. We discussed them and my needs and desires regarding oral sex and other things prior to marriage. She told me that oral sex was too intimate prior to marriage but the nuns who educated her on sexual matters assured her that after marriage she would change and everything would be appropriate. 35+years after the marriage, during a sex therapy session and discussion, she confessed that she really thought she would change after marriage, that she wanted to change, she was disgusted with her failure to change, but it was just too gross for her.

Some promises and vows are made with good intent. Some require change that the maker of those vows thinks and wants to make. Some are just beyond their capability, even if they try. People are human. I think that God would understand.

During a period of time in my sex starved marriage my wife told me that she never wanted to have sex again with anyone. Not any Hollywood actor, absolutely no one ever. We worked with a sex therapist to save our marriage. The ST helped us negotiate a loving sexual relationship that we could both live and emotionally thrive in, which included sexual intimacy twice a week. It involved much more than just sex, it involved what we wanted our marriage and emotional connection to include. Months after we started to emotionally connect and make love on an agreed upon schedule, she seriously asked me if I would have really divorced her over something as trivial as sex. I responded that sex and the associated emotional connection was not trivial to me, it was important to me and yes, I would have divorced her.

My second point is that in some areas the partner who doesn't want sex may not really understand how important sex is an emotional connection between partners nor to their partners view on what marriage is. They may also be capable of changing themselves. My W will never be HD compared to me. She will never want the sexual emotional connection that I need as much, but she can change herself to understand it and possibly change enough to save the marriage.

So, my take is that the LD partner rather than walking away should determine how much they desire to stay married and if they do, they should work with their spouse to see if there is some compromise that they are both capable of. Some people can redefine intimacy and sexual connection in a way that it can meet both partners needs. At least that is what I learned.

I am glad we did not give up on each other and our marriage.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

Young at Heart said:


> Since I have been on the non-receiving end of that bed, let me provide a little context.
> 
> First I had a wife who had some sexual hangups prior to marriage. We discussed them and my needs and desires regarding oral sex and other things prior to marriage. She told me that oral sex was too intimate prior to marriage but the nuns who educated her on sexual matters assured her that after marriage she would change and everything would be appropriate. 35+years after the marriage, during a sex therapy session and discussion, she confessed that she really thought she would change after marriage, that she wanted to change, she was disgusted with her failure to change, but it was just too gross for her.
> 
> ...


I think you make some good points, one of them being that if a woman feels no emotional connection to her husband, she may not want that physical connection.


----------



## lifeistooshort (Mar 17, 2013)

Ragnar Ragnasson said:


> 'Cause we all know that getting M automatically provides a guy with sex all the time, automatically and it's a sure thing !
> A little humor. 🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂


Yet somehow a lot of guys think it should! Lol.

But I do think that mindset is changing


----------



## Mr. Nail (Apr 26, 2011)

The typical sideroads have all been started. They are so predictable that the discussion could have proceeded without mentioning them. But then, would there have been much to discuss?
If a partner decides to remove sex from the marriage without consent of their spouse they should :
Leave the union.
Ask for no support.
Divide assets and responsibilities equally.

How is that different from a divorce of today?
Spousal support and court fights and even child support and custody are really just tools the judge uses to enforce an equitable division. 

The remaining questions that will likely soon be ruled thread jacks are:
everyone wants an extra "pound of flesh".
Does the marriage relationship require sex?
Is it law, God or honor that needs to be appeased in divorce?
I have thoughts on all of those, but, as I said it's not relevant to the discussion.


----------



## Hiner112 (Nov 17, 2019)

When my ex and I were moving in together and were talking about our relationship long term. She said that after she had children she would have trouble having sex because she would see herself as a mother and not a wife. I reasoned with her that mothers still had sex because the planet wasn't full of only children. Also, I said that I would want to have sex and would probably pursue sex with someone else if she wasn't having it with me. This turned out not to be true though. Once our sex life had dwindled to one chance a month I did not. I just doubled down on effort and hope.

One of the things @Mr. Nail missed was the observation that most civil unions include an expectation of fidelity. A partner that doesn't want to have sex effectively cuts you off from all sexual activity in most cases.

There are a couple of ways someone can check out of a marriage. You could stop participating in parenting duties, stop helping around the house, etc. In many of these cases there can be a paid substitute. No one feels cheated on if you get a housekeeper or a lawn guy unless you are actually cheating on your spouse with them.


----------



## Livvie (Jan 20, 2014)

The idea put forth in the OP was that the person who was no longer interested in sex: leave the marriage and TAKE NO SUPPORT. That's what this thread is about. Taking/receiving no support in a divorce if you no longer want to **** your spouse.

Um, why? Why no support? If you _willingly stayed married to someone who earned no or little money for a mother ****ing long time_, then support is totally justified and it's absurd to withhold it "cuz sex". You can't pick your special scenarios under which it's not given, out of hurt and spite, that's like kindergarten and not how the law works. Thank goodness!!

It is merely a punishing reaction. Do cheaters get no support, as well? How bout people who physically abuse their spouse? What about financial infidelity? What about losing interest in recreational and social activities?? What about putting other family members before your spouse? On and on the list could go of ways people get disappointed in marriage. 

Punishing someone financially and unfairly in a divorce because they lost sexual interest in you by declaring this subset of issue as grounds to deviate from what is standard in a divorce is nothing that is sensible, reasonable, or realistic.


----------



## Personal (Jan 16, 2014)

Mr. Nail said:


> If a partner decides to remove sex from the marriage without consent of their spouse they should :


Since it is no longer legally okay for someone to take sex from their spouse, without consent in Western countries. No one needs to get consent from their spouse, in order to refuse sex with them.


----------



## hinterdir (Apr 17, 2018)

badsanta said:


> _Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres._
> 
> Often people include those words in a wedding ceremony as it reflects the bible's idea of love. There are good times and bad times.
> 
> ...


What did that have to do with a sexless marriage?


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Livvie said:


> The idea put forth in the OP was that the person who was no longer interested in sex: leave the marriage and TAKE NO SUPPORT. That's what this thread is about. Taking/receiving no support in a divorce if you no longer want to **** your spouse.
> 
> Um, why? Why no support? If you _willingly stayed married to someone who earned no or little money for a mother ****ing long time_, then support is totally justified and it's absurd to withhold it "cuz sex". You can't pick your special scenarios under which it's not given, out of hurt and spite, that's like kindergarten and not how the law works. Thank goodness!!
> 
> ...


I didn't see punishment as part of the OP but more of an equitable split.


----------



## Livvie (Jan 20, 2014)

ConanHub said:


> I didn't see punishment as part of the OP but more of an equitable split.


Conan, you see suggesting that _because_ someone doesn't want to have sex with their spouse anymore they refuse spousal support they are entitled to in a divorce as--- equitable? How does that even make sense?


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

waynejoey said:


> My take is that we shouldn't quote God's existence in conjunction with satan's lies. Either you believe in God, and therefore the good news (gospel), and therefore you know God, and therefore you follow His commands, and therefore you operate within his design for marriage.
> 
> If you don't know God, then you do whatever you want... good luck
> 
> Let no man separate what God brought together. Couples in a sexless marriage needs to get their butts back in church and get to know Jesus, and then their marriage will flourish. Anything short of that is satan's handiwork.


If we are taking in a Christian sense then I don't agree, Jesus specifically said you can divorce for "sexual immorality" - Matthew 19:9,

Now if you look at 1 Corinthians 7:2



> But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. 3 The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband.


 The implication in that sentence is that part of the sexual immorality that was occurring was spouses not fulfilling their marital duty.

I think this makes it quite clear that long term sexual abandonment (assuming that your spouse is healthy, good and decent) is very much sexual immorality. What is interesting about that whole chapter is the context of the verse is specifically about sexual immorality and a very big part of the verse talks about and clearly commands against sexual abandonment.

Now the Church always interprets the "sexual immorality" to mean adultery, but that verse had nothing to do with adultery. When Jesus spoke those words the only consequence for adultery was not divorce but death. You committed adultery and you were to be stoned to death, divorce for adultery at that point was unheard of and against God's specific commandment. This was very clearly understood and happening in Jesus' day to day life, hence the story of the women being stoned. Which again is why he doesn't specifically say adultery, I mean if he meant adultery he would have just said it. 

In fact he very clearly avoids saying it because that would be against God's specific commandment. Jesus wasn't big on changing those, I don't think there is any instance when he said, God commanded this, but I say this. No there is a lot of, you are saying God said this and using that to do wrong, when he really meant this. But that is not - God said this but I disagree and say this.

It's interesting that the whole "Cast the first stone" story can be inferred (and I think rightly so) as an example of God being merciful but actually don't think there is a verse in the new testament where the penalty for adultery changes. And Jesus came to fulfill the law not make it invalid.

So don't get me wrong Christians are right to point out that Jesus was merciful to the women caught in adultery and we should be too, so I ask you if he was merciful for a person who was caught in a sin that specifically called for the death penalty why is he not also merciful for the person stuck in a sexless marriage and leaves? In fact the "Sexual Immorality" clause in that verse is very general precisely because he is merciful. My feeling is he made it vague because of how devastating sexual sin is, and he never expected someone to have to live with it in their lives, that includes a sexless marriage.

I don't think you should just leave your marriage if this is an issue, you should work on it which is also what we are commanded to do. And let make it abundantly clear that lots of Men (and some women) treat there wives like garbage during the day and expect them to act like prostitutes at night, and in such a case the wife would be better off with a divorce. Which is why I continue to say (assuming that your spouse is healthy, good and decent). The point is there should be a willingness to work on this by both parties. But if it is discussed and your spouse willfully disobeys this command then they are committing sexual immorality and you are free to divorce. 

Now maybe OP should get his butt in church, but considering how obtuse the church is on the subject not sure why anyone would expect them to be able to help.


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

Young at Heart said:


> Since I have been on the non-receiving end of that bed, let me provide a little context.
> 
> First I had a wife who had some sexual hangups prior to marriage. We discussed them and my needs and desires regarding oral sex and other things prior to marriage. She told me that oral sex was too intimate prior to marriage but the nuns who educated her on sexual matters assured her that after marriage she would change and everything would be appropriate. 35+years after the marriage, during a sex therapy session and discussion, she confessed that she really thought she would change after marriage, that she wanted to change, she was disgusted with her failure to change, but it was just too gross for her.
> 
> ...



Honestly I think the wisest assumption (which has been proven over and over on here and other sites) is not the they don't want sex, it's that they don't want sex with you. Far too many times they are quite open to having crazy sex with someone else. Often times this is occurring the same time they are professing how much they don't care about it.

Now it could be true, they just don't like sex. But I think that is a very rare person, and again you are much wiser to assume they just not into you as hard as that is to accept.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Livvie said:


> Conan, you see suggesting that _because_ someone doesn't want to have sex with their spouse anymore they refuse spousal support they are entitled to in a divorce as--- equitable? How does that even make sense?


What I see is the OP and his situation and where he is coming from. I also see incredible bitterness and hurt from your own issues. The OP could have included more details to suit your position but maybe you could try and understand his?


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

TJW said:


> about marriages which are sexless, or for any practical purpose, sexless.
> 
> I want to know what your "take" on this is.....
> 
> ...



So I made my whole take about sexual abandonment, but as a counter to this point, if you are in a sexless marriage the first person you need to work on is you. 

How do you treat your spouse, what is their life like? Have you made being a attractive to them both physically and mentally a priority? If you are a husband do you make it a point to give your wife a safe home where she can feel relaxed, appreciated, and most of all safe. Safe enough emotionally to be vulnerable to you sexually? If you are a wife, does your husband feel respected and desired? Do you make it a point to show him that this part of your marriage is important to you too and not just something that you are required to do?

Whatever it is sex should never be seen as an entitlement. It's a one of the two greatest ways to create intimacy and should be treated as a very important part of your relationship.

I would say 70% of the problem can be fixed with paying attention to these things. Before you ever get to divorce.


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

Livvie said:


> The idea put forth in the OP was that the person who was no longer interested in sex: leave the marriage and TAKE NO SUPPORT. That's what this thread is about. Taking/receiving no support in a divorce if you no longer want to **** your spouse.


I personally don't understand in today's day an age why any able bodied person who is not married should be supported by anyone they are not married to. This would include divorced people no matter who initiated it. This is not a healthy situation particularly for the person being supported. Nothing is more empowering then supporting one's self. We are no longer in the days where there were no options for women. The wage gab may exist but it is closing everyday. 

Now if you were a stay at home mother then I can understand a period of time where you get support to help you get on your feet but alimony is an outdated concept that will be gone in 10 years, specifically once more and more women have to pay it. Particularly now when women are more likely to be college graduates then the men their age and therefore lots of times have a much greater earning potential.

Child support - yes. 
Split of assets - absolutely. 
Alimony - nope.


----------



## moon7 (May 5, 2013)

So after i gave up career, gave up my family, had 2 kids, sacrificed all and was always by his side while HE didnt want to have sex, nor kiss, no foreplay for me and stuff. Im the one who should be punished and leave WITHOUT ANYTHING and go raise 2 babies all by myself without help?

Thanks, but no thanks.


----------



## Livvie (Jan 20, 2014)

ConanHub said:


> What I see is the OP and his situation and where he is coming from. I also see incredible bitterness and hurt from your own issues. The OP could have included more details to suit your position but maybe you could try and understand his?


Eh, I work in the family law field. I truly think it's ridiculous, and that's not even a strong enough word, to suggest that someone would deviate from spousal support guidelines because one of the parties stopped wanting to have sex with the other.

How the **** do you even litigate that? It's silly. Support is based on _financial calculations and situations_ and isn't affected by who wants or doesn't want sex (at xyz frequency), come on, people!


----------



## badsanta (Oct 13, 2014)

hinterdir said:


> What did that have to do with a sexless marriage?


The OP addressed anyone in a sexless marriage. 

People use the word "sexless" around here to mean a wide variety of things. The audience will include people that want sex three times a day but it only happens once a week and feel sexless.


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

TJW said:


> If you are a spouse who doesn't want (yes, WANT) to have sex with your spouse, to the exclusion of anyone else on this entire planet, then:
> you should do the HONORABLE thing, and GET OUT. Yes, OUT. And, at your own expense.


Some people actually get married knowing there will be no sex in the marriage. Some will be open if one partner isn't as LD or asexual like the other. Others will be happy regardless of the lack.



> No alimony.
> No spousal support.
> No court fight.
> Just divide the assets, and the debts, co-parent, and GET OUT.


Since the legal aspect of a marriage, or any aspect really, is not solely about the sex, this is highly unreasonable.



> You promised that you would "keep yourself only unto" your spouse. You promised that you were "forsaking all others". You promised this BEFORE GOD


.

Who are you to tell others what they promised and to whom, unless you were there to witnessed such? Your idea of what promises should be made and to whom is irrelevant. I can guarantee you that I nor any of my spouses will ever make those specific promises, and we know many other who will not either. And our Lord and/or Lady (depending upon each 's individual religion) is perfectly alright with that.



> If you are not doing this, you better formulate a damn good answer for when God asks you, "why?". You're gonna need it.....


Nothing to answer for. Such is perfectly within the realm of what He asks of me. Your ideals are irrelevant to that.


----------



## Marriednatlanta (Sep 21, 2016)

Diana7 said:


> I think you make some good points, one of them being that if a woman feels no emotional connection to her husband, she may not want that physical connection.


I am going to double down on both of these comments. N and I are STILL trying to establish an EC after 23+ years. I have not updated my thread bc I don’t have a lot of news to report. The sex is moderately better or more frequent. We still have set backs etc...

We make some progress then regress. I do believe that in almost all cases (mine included) there is a room to improve on the HD side of the equation that can and will lead to a better sex life. If you LD spouse has given you a definitive HARD NO no sex etc...then you should probably decide what your nuclear option is - divorce, open marriage, FWBs, etc....

N has expressed a willingness to work at the E connection and it is better but we have a long way to go. And throw in some COVID homeschooling and it is a perfect recipe for treading water.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

moon7 said:


> So after i gave up career, gave up my family, had 2 kids, sacrificed all and was always by his side while HE didnt want to have sex, nor kiss, no foreplay for me and stuff. Im the one who should be punished and leave WITHOUT ANYTHING and go raise 2 babies all by myself without help?
> 
> Thanks, but no thanks.


I'm with you. LoL! I think OP is coming at this from your plight only on the male side.
I'll let him start answering as he seems to have abandoned his thread.

I know his situation and empathize. I definitely believe he would empathize with yours as well.


----------



## Lostinthought61 (Nov 5, 2013)

GC1234 said:


> I have gotten into moods of not wanting sex. It's generally for a couple of reasons: disgust with my husband over an argument; not helping around the house and being resentful; lack of passion after kids...I'm sure there's more.


so in other words you use sex as the carrot or the stick, punishing him by denying it when he is bad rewarding when he behaves well.


----------



## Livvie (Jan 20, 2014)

Lostinthought61 said:


> so in other words you use sex as the carrot or the stick, punishing him by denying it when he is bad rewarding when he behaves well.


I'm not the poster you replied to, but not many people want to have sex with someone they don't have a good relationship with. It's kind of disgusting to term that as carrot and stick.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Livvie said:


> Eh, I work in the family law field. I truly think it's ridiculous, and that's not even a strong enough word, to suggest that someone would deviate from spousal support guidelines because one of the parties stopped wanting to have sex with the other.
> 
> How the **** do you even litigate that? It's silly. Support is based on _financial calculations and situations_ and isn't affected by who wants or doesn't want sex (at xyz frequency), come on, people!


LoL! I am actually not against your position on this at all. I think you're a solid poster. I'm not looking at the OP through the lense of current law but from an empathetic POV.
I can agree with your position and his as well.
He has not been treated fairly or well and the law is on the side of the villain in his case.


----------



## Divinely Favored (Apr 1, 2014)

If it was just a wife no longer wanting sex and a divorce ensues, in a lot of these instances the hubby may have to pay support when he was the victim so to speak. That is wrong. 

For it to be partially equitable would be for judge to rule the spouse pays support and other spouse has to go clean, cook and do laundry 3 days week while being paid alimony. That way both spouses are "paying dues" for the determined time after divorce. Otherwise the one spouse is being penalized unfairly without compensation.


----------



## Lostinthought61 (Nov 5, 2013)

Livvie said:


> I'm not the poster you replied to, but not many people want to have sex with someone they don't have a good relationship with. It's kind of disgusting to term that as carrot and stick.


Livvie while i agree with the first part of your assessment, you can not deny that there are some spouses who do use sex in that context, regardless of how disgusted that is...


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

moon7 said:


> So after i gave up career, gave up my family, had 2 kids, sacrificed all and was always by his side while HE didnt want to have sex, nor kiss, no foreplay for me and stuff. Im the one who should be punished and leave WITHOUT ANYTHING and go raise 2 babies all by myself without help?
> 
> Thanks, but no thanks.


Actually reading OP's first post, your husband (who is in the wrong) should be the one getting out (I suspect he means if you want him to). I guess your take is if you want to stay there you should have the right to, I am not sure OP would disagree. 

He says nothing of child support. 

Also 



> Just divide the assets, and the debts, co-parent, and GET OUT.


He still advocates for split assets. 

I think this is more about people like yourself trapped in a sexless marriage feeling stuck because the cost assessment of divorce seems to great, so it doesn't really follow your situation.


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

Livvie said:


> Eh, I work in the family law field. I truly think it's ridiculous, and that's not even a strong enough word, to suggest that someone would deviate from spousal support guidelines because one of the parties stopped wanting to have sex with the other.
> 
> How the **** do you even litigate that? It's silly. Support is based on _financial calculations and situations_ and isn't affected by who wants or doesn't want sex (at xyz frequency), come on, people!


You get rid of support entirely unless it involves children (when they are NOT adults). The idea that someone should get to keep their financial lifestyle because they were once married to someone is an antiquated unrealistic idea in the 21st century when almost everyone works and it's going to go away. The process has already started.


----------



## GC1234 (Apr 15, 2020)

Lostinthought61 said:


> so in other words you use sex as the carrot or the stick, punishing him by denying it when he is bad rewarding when he behaves well.


Not at all. I don't use sex to hurt or reward my husband. I just said they are things that would put me out of the mood. I would think it would be natural enough to be turned off at certain times in life, we are human after all, not robots ready to go every second. But I don't consider myself to be calculating person, or one to plot this out, lol.


----------



## Livvie (Jan 20, 2014)

sokillme said:


> You get rid of support entirely unless it involves children (when they are NOT adults). The idea that someone should get to keep their financial lifestyle because they were once married to someone is an antiquated unrealistic idea in the 21st century when almost everyone works and it's going to go away. The process has already started.


No woman (or man) in her right mind is ever going to quit her job to be the stay at home parent to care for the couple's young children for any length of time if spousal support doesn't exist. 

Imagine if she quits her job and doesn't work for 10 years because she is the one taking care of the home and the few kids the couple has. Then he has an affair and they get divorced. She's going to need some spousal support for a bit, and she should have it.

I think there will always be couples who decide they want one of them home with their kids until they are in school full day. That can add up to many years of being out of the workforce depending upon the number of kids you have.


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

Livvie said:


> No woman (or man) in her right mind is ever going to quit her job to be the stay at home parent to care for the couple's young children for any length of time if spousal support doesn't exist.
> 
> Imagine if she quits her job and doesn't work for 10 years because she is the one taking care of the home and the few kids the couple has. Then he has an affair and they get divorced. She's going to need some spousal support for a bit, and she should have it.
> 
> I think there will always be couples who decide they want one of them home with their kids until they are in school full day. That can add up to many years of being out of the workforce depending upon the number of kids you have.


And my take was there should be a period of time that allows the spouse to get on their feet in that case. Like say 5 years.


----------



## Livvie (Jan 20, 2014)

sokillme said:


> And my take was there should be a period of time that allows the spouse to get on their feet in that case. Like say 5 years.


I agree. That's what it is in my state. It's not for long. But it is necessary in those cases.


----------



## Casual Observer (Sep 13, 2012)

Young at Heart said:


> Since I have been on the non-receiving end of that bed, let me provide a little context.
> 
> First I had a wife who had some sexual hangups prior to marriage. We discussed them and my needs and desires regarding oral sex and other things prior to marriage. She told me that oral sex was too intimate prior to marriage but the nuns who educated her on sexual matters assured her that after marriage she would change and everything would be appropriate. 35+years after the marriage, during a sex therapy session and discussion, she confessed that she really thought she would change after marriage, that she wanted to change, she was disgusted with her failure to change, but it was just too gross for her.
> 
> ...


My story is hopefully on a parallel path to yours, but with some pretty strong "acting out" as a sort of rebellion from her parents and religious beliefs before meeting me. Which unfortunately left her with sex triggering bad memories of when sex was pleasurable before, which she rejected, and re-wrote her story to claim virignity when she met me, and 42 years later we've been in IC and MC and now ST and the ST is getting VERY expensive, with no quick fix.

The path to the counseling has been her desire to stay married and "fix" her shame & guilt issues revolving around sex, and trust issues her deceit brought into the marriage, but the ST seems to have changed the rules and instead of working to bring my wife back to a place where sex is OK, is trying to get me to accept that lack of sex is a normal thing for people in their 60s and that once or twice a week is as much as should be expected. And that if I want sex 6 times a week she should let me walk (and that in itself is a major issue because there has not been and never would be a "requirement" for that much sex; the topic was what I would "like" and I wasn't honest and said 6x while the truth might be higher, but this was misconstrued as a requirement and my wife and the ST have made me look like the bad guy for wanting sex 6x per week).

So.... what am I saying here. A loving married couple that generally gets along in the rest of their life but has issues with mismatched sex drive/desire/needs should definitely seek sex therapy, but don't see it as a quick fix and it might not be a fix at all.


----------



## Young at Heart (Jan 6, 2015)

Casual Observer said:


> My story is hopefully on a parallel path to yours, but with some pretty strong "acting out" as a sort of rebellion from her parents and religious beliefs before meeting me. Which unfortunately left her with sex triggering bad memories of when sex was pleasurable before, which she rejected, and re-wrote her story to claim virignity when she met me, and 42 years later we've been in IC and MC and now ST and the ST is getting VERY expensive, with no quick fix.
> 
> The path to the counseling has been her desire to stay married and "fix" her shame & guilt issues revolving around sex, and trust issues her deceit brought into the marriage, but the ST seems to have changed the rules and instead of working to bring my wife back to a place where sex is OK, is trying to get me to accept that lack of sex is a normal thing for people in their 60s and that once or twice a week is as much as should be expected. And that if I want sex 6 times a week she should let me walk (and that in itself is a major issue because there has not been and never would be a "requirement" for that much sex; the topic was what I would "like" and I wasn't honest and said 6x while the truth might be higher, but this was misconstrued as a requirement and my wife and the ST have made me look like the bad guy for wanting sex 6x per week).
> 
> So.... what am I saying here. A loving married couple that generally gets along in the rest of their life but has issues with mismatched sex drive/desire/needs should definitely seek sex therapy, but don't see it as a quick fix and it might not be a fix at all.


My heart goes out to you. I admit that we got luck with a really good sex therapist and we both wanted to save our marriage.

What I was told long ago was that one should expect to spend at least a month in counseling for every year of problems in a marriage, before you expect to see some results.

One of the things I concluded is that I cannot change my wife, only she can change herself and then only if and to the extent that she wants to. There are many things I wish my wife would do differently, and I know she will probably never change. I have learned to accept that and forgive her for the pain she caused me in the past.

Instead I try to focus on what we have together and what we do together that makes us both happy and emotionally bonded to each other.

There is one thing that I would like to comment on.


> but the ST seems to have changed the rules and instead of working to bring my wife back to a place where sex is OK, is trying to get me to accept that lack of sex is a normal thing for people in their 60s and that once or twice a week is as much as should be expected. And that if I want sex 6 times a week she should let me walk (and that in itself is a major issue because there has not been and never would be a "requirement" for that much sex;


Perhaps you should ask the ST a few questions about what the goal of ST is. If the goal you and your W have stated is to save the marriage and the ST has viewed your wife as more reluctant to increase sexual frequency or intimacy then this may be the ST's approach to get you to accept a change in compromise. The 6 times a week may be exaggeration to make a point.

I remember when the ST asked me to carefully think about the sexual frequency that would make me happy and was the loving sexual relationship I had promised myself. I took a week to really reflect on my answer. I told the ST and my wife that sex three times a week and being held most of the other days a week would make me feel beyond happy. The ST asked why not sex three times a day. I explained what I would need that and why I didn't want to overwhelm my wife, but that I did need to feel loved and emotionally connected.

Ask the ST what he or she things the goal should be toward resolving your sexual problems that are negatively impacting your marriage and what kind of time table and priorities they should have. Tell her or him that if they don't think they are making progress maybe they should recommend someone else who may have more luck.

One of the things I tried to explore was non-sexual intimate acts between my wife and myself that would either lead to real sexual intimacy or be a substitute. My wife found the Sensate Focus, the sensual massage, more intimidating than actual PIV sex. 

Another thing you might want to discuss with your wife and the ST is what a loving marriage should look like in 5 years, 10 years, 20 years. What kind of intimacy should a loving marriage include, when due to medical conditions, PIV may no longer be possible. Get those questions out on the table and discussed. There was a truly frightening book I read called Still Sexy after All These Years. It was a collection of interviews/short stories about women over the age of 50 and how they found happiness and what they did when divorce, death, medical conditions, etc. kept them from having a sex partner. It focused on what filled the void in their sex lives. Some found other partners, some found self pleasure, some focused on family, some gave up totally on sex. I was afraid that my wife would give up totally on sex and be a lonely old woman.

You are right there are not short term fixes. I wish you the absolutely best. Good luck.


----------



## FloridaGuy1 (Nov 4, 2019)

TJW said:


> about marriages which are sexless, or for any practical purpose, sexless.
> 
> I want to know what your "take" on this is.....
> 
> ...


What about the spouses who don't want sex but want everything else from the spouse? I think they fall into the same category you mentioned. Its not just folks that cheat but ones who withhold sex.


----------



## Casual Observer (Sep 13, 2012)

FloridaGuy1 said:


> What about the spouses who don't want sex but want everything else from the spouse? I think they fall into the same category you mentioned. Its not just folks that cheat but ones who withhold sex.


"That" spouse (the one actively avoiding sex) probably has the same comeback to that accusation in every single instance. "Why is sex the only thing that matters?" And because the discussion centers on sex, by definition, because that's the problem, it may appear that sex is the only thing that matters. The very fact that the issue has a needed focus becomes the problem.


----------



## Talker67 (Apr 7, 2016)

Livvie said:


> No, I heartily disagree.
> 
> I "didn't want" to have sex with my spouse at the time of the divorce, because he had betrayed me to the highest degree.
> 
> ...


she has a good point.

withholding sex in a NORMAL marriage, where both partners are healthy and not cheating.....is what is immoral.


----------



## TJW (Mar 20, 2012)

FloridaGuy1 said:


> What about the spouses who don't want sex but want everything else from the spouse?


Or, how about the ones who want sex with SOMEONE ELSE but everything else from the spouse? In fact, would have married the "other" if he weren't a lazy-ass deadbeat....

The ones who don't "refuse" sex, but never initiate, and grudgingly deliver the starfish ?


----------



## WandaJ (Aug 5, 2014)

sokillme said:


> And my take was there should be a period of time that allows the spouse to get on their feet in that case. Like say 5 years.


The loss of potential lifetime earnings that you give up by staying home to take care of kids is huge. Your career and money you will be able to make will never catch up with what you would make if you just kept working. I am still amazed that women decide to do this at all, it makes you so dependent. 

I’ve been married 23 years. I worked most of it but had to move around after my husband’s job. That hit my career as I had to start all over. Then I stayed home with kids for just five years and after that we openrd business together, which I manage. I was running between feeding kids and working, often catching up in it at night. with time he basically moved all responsibilities to me: business, children and house. He goes to work and that his only focus while I run from work to store to cook dinner to do laundry, to teach 15yo drive when I just want to rest. I will leave business and hell I will ask for spousal alimony. No more nice gal.


----------



## Livvie (Jan 20, 2014)

TJW said:


> Or, how about the ones who want sex with SOMEONE ELSE but everything else from the spouse? In fact, would have married the "other" if he weren't a lazy-ass deadbeat....
> 
> The ones who don't "refuse" sex, but never initiate, and grudgingly deliver the starfish ?


How about them? Divorce them once that starts to happen, if you two can't make it better through counseling, etc. 

It still doesn't negate the need for spousal support in cases it makes sense given certain financial situations, though 😉


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

WandaJ said:


> The loss of potential lifetime earnings that you give up by staying home to take care of kids is huge. Your career and money you will be able to make will never catch up with what you would make if you just kept working. I am still amazed that women decide to do this at all, it makes you so dependent.
> 
> I’ve been married 23 years. I worked most of it but had to move around after my husband’s job. That hit my career as I had to start all over. Then I stayed home with kids for just five years and after that we openrd business together, which I manage. I was running between feeding kids and working, often catching up in it at night. with time he basically moved all responsibilities to me: business, children and house. He goes to work and that his only focus while I run from work to store to cook dinner to do laundry, to teach 15yo drive when I just want to rest. I will leave business and hell I will ask for spousal alimony. No more nice gal.


The loss of potential lifetime earnings that *"you"* give up by staying home to take care of kids is huge. 

That is the point, you took that chance. You are still responsible for your choices. And that loss of career earnings was their if you stayed married or not, you lose the majority earnings during the time you stay at home. 

I don't think any capable healthy person should be dependent on anyone else especially when they are not married. It's a very unhealthy dynamic for the person who is dependent.


----------



## WandaJ (Aug 5, 2014)

sokillme said:


> The loss of potential lifetime earnings that *"you"* give up by staying home to take care of kids is huge.
> 
> That is the point, you took that chance. You are still responsible for your choices. And that loss of career earnings was their if you stayed married or not, you lose the majority earnings during the time you stay at home.
> 
> I don't think any capable healthy person should be dependent on anyone else especially when they are not married. It's a very unhealthy dynamic for the person who is dependent.


no not dependent, just extra compensation, kind of a royalty for work I put so your career takes off. You both agreed on that arrangement - you work, and do not have to worry about anything else. I take care of everything else. Both sides made that choice.

But I would never do it again. And I will not encourage my daughters to do that, I will always support them in keeping their jobs and independance. Nothing more important than that.

The funny thing - men who complain about women asking for alimony, are the same men often who complain about the loss of traditional family values. If you want traditional family values in your home, be prepared to support it. Or do not complain about women in workforce.


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

WandaJ said:


> no not dependent, just extra compensation, kind of a royalty for work I put so your career takes off. You both agreed on that arrangement - you work, and do not have to worry about anything else. I take care of everything else. Both sides made that choice.
> 
> But I would never do it again. And I will not encourage my daughters to do that, I will always support them in keeping their jobs and independance. Nothing more important than that.
> 
> The funny thing - men who complain about women asking for alimony, are the same men often who complain about the loss of traditional family values. If you want traditional family values in your home, be prepared to support it. Or do not complain about women in workforce.


First of all I am not complaining about it. I just don't believe in long term alimony. Men get it too, and I don't think they should. Presumably you are a stay at home parent because you want to be and that brings a value to your life and kids. I can see that when they are very young. Well the other parent working supports you when you do that and that is the benefit the SAH parent gets. They are able to stay at home and be supported financially. It's a mutual choice where one person pays for everything and the other person sacrifices potential earning at that time. It should be pointed out that this is also a potential financial earning that the couple will never get back as a partnership, so it's not like the working parent isn't taking a financial hit too. The "royalty for work" idea discounts that the potential earnings that could have gone into retirement, or paying off the mortgage if the SAH parent was working. They both sacrificed that for the kids. So at the end of the day it seems like a pretty equitable split to me. Just because this was aggreed to during the time when the kids were young doesn't mean the agreement should have to stand the rest of their lives. Especially when the marriage ends. 

If you are a SAH parent and have no skills I say 5 years support to get that together, but that's it. Not a lifetime. There is no reason why over the long hall a healthy individual can't support themselves now a days. And it's better for that individual. Ownership in ones life is much more beneficial for overall happiness then money is in the long run in my experience anyway. Marrying someone shouldn't mean a lifetime of financial support if it doesn't work out.

50-50 split of assets, and 50/50 child split, or child support depending, makes sense to me. (ending at 18).

By the way I wouldn't marry a women who didn't work or have some sort of ambition, I would see that as a big red flag. Though if we had had kids and she wanted to take 5-7 years off to take care of the kids I wouldn't be against it. After they are in school I would never advise anyone to SAH. I think it's very unhealthy and creates a child/parent dynamic with the potential of much too much going wrong. Idle hands and all that. And it's not a Man or Women thing, it's a healthy unhealthy thing.


----------



## WandaJ (Aug 5, 2014)

sokillme said:


> First of all I am not complaining about it. I just don't believe in long term alimony. Men get it too, and I don't think they should. Presumably you are a stay at home parent because you want to be and that brings a value to your life and kids. I can see that when they are very young. Well the other parent working supports you when you do that and that is the benefit the SAH parent gets. They are able to stay at home and be supported financially. It's a mutual choice where one person pays for everything and the other person sacrifices potential earning at that time. It should be pointed out that this is also a potential financial earning that the couple will never get back as a partnership, so it's not like the working parent isn't taking a financial hit too. The "royalty for work" idea discounts that the potential earnings that could have gone into retirement, or paying off the mortgage if the SAH parent was working. They both sacrificed that for the kids. So at the end of the day it seems like a pretty equitable split to me. Just because this was aggreed to during the time when the kids were young doesn't mean the agreement should have to stand the rest of their lives. Especially when the marriage ends.
> 
> If you are a SAH parent and have no skills I say 5 years support to get that together, but that's it. Not a lifetime. There is no reason why over the long hall a healthy individual can't support themselves now a days. And it's better for that individual. Ownership in ones life is much more beneficial for overall happiness then money is in the long run in my experience anyway. Marrying someone shouldn't mean a lifetime of financial support if it doesn't work out.
> 
> ...


I get your point too. Frankly, I do not understand women who stay home once the kids are at school. I did my five years of that, and these weren't happy years for me. All these arguments - yours and mine - are in support of "never marrying/never procreating" way of life.....


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

WandaJ said:


> I get your point too. Frankly, I do not understand women who stay home once the kids are at school. I did my five years of that, and these weren't happy years for me. All these arguments - yours and mine - are in support of "never marrying/never procreating" way of life.....


Ha, "never marrying/never procreating" 

I don't really feel that way though. I think if you marry the right person marriage can be great. It's just that lots of people suck.


----------



## WandaJ (Aug 5, 2014)

sokillme said:


> Ha, "never marrying/never procreating"
> 
> I don't really feel that way though. I think if you marry the right person marriage can be great. It's just that lots of people suck.


Yeah, and that’s the problem.... lol


----------



## cp3o (Jun 2, 2018)

TJW said:


> about marriages which are sexless, or for any practical purpose, sexless.
> 
> I want to know what your "take" on this is.....
> 
> ...


Your mistake, IMO, is that you are inserting concepts about your interpretation of an unevidenced, irrational, unnecessary and therefore almost certainly non-existent deity into what goes on in the real world.

Marriage, whether formally legalised or not, is about people and meeting their needs - not about servitude to any one of the myriad imaginary gods that humanity has constructed.

You are, of course, entitled to believe whatever meets your need - but since your need is as individual as anyone else's you, like me, have no moral right either to judge, or to seek to impose your, however sincere, quirks on, others.


----------



## Talker67 (Apr 7, 2016)

i think the ONLY marriages that are both sexless and stable are where BOTH partners are asexual.

If one wants sex, and the other denies it....bad outcomes are certain to happen.

really, the only exception to that is where one partner, thru no fault of their own ends up with a medical condition and can not "perform". the other partner will respect that they want to keep the marriage going sexually, but simply can't.


----------

