# The ethics of accepting duty and starfish sex??



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

This thought has been swirling around in my mind for awhile and when a recent post was made where it was referenced that a partner was simply "accomidating" the OP and that person had stated they would be fine not having sex again brought it up to the forefront of my mind on what the ethics of engaging in Duty/Starfish sex is on the behalf of the HD partner. 

Taking things at face value that the LD partner has no innate interest in sex of their own but is simply accommodating the HD partner to presumably keep the HD partner from leaving or cheating or basically send the LD partner packing..... Is it actually ethical for the HD partner to accept it and have the LD partner doing something that she/he does not want to. 

Now I am not talking about anything actually nonconsensual or coerced or anything. I am talking about a LD partner who is basically trying to appease the HD partner out of a sense of duty and obligation but is still basically consenting for the sake of the marriage and partnership. 

So I am not talking about whether it is right or wrong for the LD partner to submit to providing duty sex. 

I am asking if at the end of the day it is ethical for the HD partner to accept it as they are basically doing something they do not actually desire or wish to do. 

And the flip side to that is, if the LD partner is willing to provide a certain degree of duty sex, is it ethical for HD partner to not accept and to dissolve the relationship anyway??


Is it ethical and moral to have someone engaging in an activity that they don't want in order to maintain the relationship or keep someone from looking elsewhere for it? 

But by the same token, would it be ethical or moral to not take them up on it and remain miserable and dissatisfied in the relationship?

And conversely, what would be the ethics and morality of dissolving the relationship over the lack of sexuality when the LD partner is willing to provide it out of duty? 

I'm seeing this as kind of a 'Dammed if You Do, Dammed if You Don't" kind of no-win scenario for the HD.

What is more ethical and what is less ethical, to accept something that someone does not want to do but is willing to watch the clock and endure it out of a sense of obligation, presumably to ward off divorce or seeking it elsewhere?

Or to not take up the offer and allow frustration, dissatisfaction and ultimately resentment and bitterness to build?


Or to dissolve the relationship even though the service is somewhat being offered??


Discuss-


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

……. and just for the sake of argument, let's assume that all parties involved are normal, decent people acting in good faith and that the disparity of desire has been discussed repeatedly, MC attended, solutions sought and that no one has gained 100lbs or stopped showering or anything and that the relationship is otherwise functional and sound.


----------



## sunsetmist (Jul 12, 2018)

I'm not talking about ethics here, but IMO less than enthusiastic, fun sex (at least most of the time) is a LOSS to both partners. 

The glitch is usually in the brain and can be remedied.


----------



## personofinterest (Apr 6, 2018)

Interesting question.

I have an additional one:

Is it ethical to enter into a marriage with someone who has a high need/desire for sex, knowing you do not?


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

Which sex is supposed to be LD?
Before all you ‘egalitarians’ eat me up, it’s important. Much harder for an LD guy to provide ‘starfish’ sex than for an LD woman.

I don’t see what the big deal is to have sex/‘accept’ duty sex (or ‘provide’ it) when it’s the woman who is LD. Just use a bit of lube or coconut oil and off you go, Caligula. For a guy: even a **** ring may not help achieve an erection so not that much you can do there...It’s just physics...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Tatsuhiko (Jun 21, 2016)

There are degrees of what we call coercion. I can guarantee you that I _never_ have an actual desire to load or unload the dishwasher. But I do it because I know my wife does a fair amount of housework and I like to accommodate her quest for more free time and the resulting happiness. She knows I don't like unloading the dishwasher, but has no ethical problem with me doing it out of a sense of duty to her. So no, I have no problem when the question involves duty sex. My question is more about whether the HL spouse should put up with a partner who cannot muster any genuine passion for them.


----------



## Livvie (Jan 20, 2014)

personofinterest said:


> Interesting question.
> 
> I have an additional one:
> 
> Is it ethical to enter into a marriage with someone who has a high need/desire for sex, knowing you do not?


I think it is not. Well, maybe it depends. If the HD is in FULL knowledge of the incompatibility and still wants to move forward, then it is.


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

A relationship involves all sorts of trade-offs, and doing of favors for each other. I think that if both can accept duty-sex as one of these favors, and if the relationship is overall balanced, then it is OK. If the LD views it as a degrading chore, then its different. 

This of course assumes that the HD person enjoys sex provided as a favor and doesn't need to be "desired" in order to enjoy sex.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

inmyprime said:


> Which sex is supposed to be LD?
> Before all you ‘egalitarians’ eat me up, it’s important. Much harder for an LD guy to provide ‘starfish’ sex than for an LD woman.
> 
> I don’t see what the big deal is to have sex/‘accept’ duty sex (or ‘provide’ it) when it’s the woman who is LD. Just use a bit of lube or coconut oil and off you go, Caligula. For a guy: even a **** ring may not help achieve an erection so not that much you can do there...It’s just physics...
> ...


I disagree. 

ED is a whole other thing. ED is a disorder. 


Men that may be LD and not all that into sex with their spouse can still get it up if they are stimulated and guys that can be hot for their wife and desire their wife may not be able to. ED is a whole separate issue that is not applicable to the point of this discussion. 

I am sure some of the ladies here on TAM can relate experiences with men just going through the motions to shut them up (not that any of the ladies here aren't desirable and sexy!! :-D ) 

And while you may think that a bottle of lube renders duty/starfish sex as 'no big deal', it does not. Someone doing something they do not want to do is a big deal. Lube does not nullify the significance or the ethical ramifications. 

This is a gross exaggeration of course but that is almost like saying raping someone is ok as long as you bring your own lube along.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

personofinterest said:


> Interesting question.
> 
> I have an additional one:
> 
> Is it ethical to enter into a marriage with someone who has a high need/desire for sex, knowing you do not?


The problem is I really don't think anyone thinks of themselves as LD. 

LD is a title bestowed upon someone that has a higher drive than them. I've had a couple GFs in the past that called me LD (ME of all people LOL ) 

There is no benchmark for level of libido for which someone is defined as either HD or LD. 

Somewhere out there is a couple where one wants to do it 2 times a year and the other only wants it once. The 2/yr person can literally say that their libido is twice as strong as their partner's and the "LD" partner will accuse the other of being a perv that is always complaining about sex. 

There is nothing to objectively define who is HD and who is LD. It's all about how they are in relation to each other.


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

oldshirt said:


> I disagree.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I wasn’t talking about having ED while desiring your wife. I was talking about not desiring your wife and not getting it up as a result of that. (The order is important ). Which is how it would normally happen.

I don’t see what the ethical ramifications are supposed to be? If you don’t want to **** each other anymore, then the ramification is that you probably should t be together anymore instead of trying to force it. 

However if one partner’s ideal frequency is once a month while the other likes in every day, I would not consider having sex once a week as a compromise to be equal to rape. 




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

oldshirt said:


> The problem is I really don't think anyone thinks of themselves as LD.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




You are the Einstein of sexual relations and just invented relativity. 

I believe there are certain norms. I think that sex several times a day and less frequent than once a week is abnormal (unless there are physical issues). This is just based on statistics; not that I think there is anything abnormal if both people enjoy ****ing after every meal.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

inmyprime said:


> I wasn’t talking about having ED while desiring your wife. I was talking about not desiring your wife and not getting it up as a result of that. (The order is important ). Which is how it would normally happen.
> 
> I don’t see what the ethical ramifications are supposed to be? If you don’t want to **** each other anymore, then the ramification is that you probably should t be together anymore instead of trying to force it.
> 
> ...



A healthy man would have to be really really really really really really really (ok you get the point) disgusted with his wife to not be able to get it up but to otherwise have it functioning fine. 
I don't think it is a realistic scenario to have a healthy man not be able to achieve an erection at all due to simple lack of desire for his wife. If some guy was really that disgusted by her, he probably wouldn't be with her for long in the first place. 

I am talking about someone who does make a valid attempt to appease their partner, at least to the point of not dissolving the relationship. 


And while a woman can always offer up a HJ or BJ if she doesn't want full contact PIV to help relieve his pressure, so too can a man. 

ED is a disorder that is a separate issue from lack of desire.


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

oldshirt said:


> A healthy man would have to be really really really really really really really (ok you get the point) disgusted with his wife to not be able to get it up but to otherwise have it functioning fine.
> 
> I don't think it is a realistic scenario to have a healthy man not be able to achieve an erection at all due to simple lack of desire for his wife. If some guy was really that disgusted by her, he probably wouldn't be with her for long in the first place.
> 
> ...




ED can be separate but it can also be related and a direct consequence. You need to compare apples with apples: a sexually unaroused man is more difficult to **** than a sexually unaroused woman.

But let’s assume the man can always get it up; it’s still easier for a woman to let your husband have sex with you than have sex with an HD woman. Men usually do most of the physical work during sex.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

There’s also nothing unethical about sometimes having sex even if you don’t particularly want to (when you know your partner really wants to). 
Saying otherwise is like joining a golf club then trying to get the whole club to come around to your way of thinking of liking tennis instead. Then don’t join the ****ing golf club! Join a tennis club instead! You needed up in the wrong club.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

inmyprime said:


> There’s also nothing unethical about sometimes having sex even if you don’t particularly want to (when you know your partner really wants to).


I agree in principle in regards to "sometimes." I think everyone that has been married a number of years has accommodated their partner at some point when they themselves weren't really in the mood initially. 

I'm not talking about 'sometimes.' I am talking about when one partner has basically lost all desire for sex with their partner indefinitely and is pretty much just offering up some duty sex periodically to stay in the marriage. 

This DOES raise some ethical issues because you have someone doing something that they do not innately want to do. 

Is it ethical to indulge in an activity that you know the other doesn't actually want to do but is doing it out of duty to remain in the marriage. 

But conversely is it more or less ethical to not take the accommodation and become less and less satisfied with the marriage over time? 

And ultimately is it more or less ethical to dissolve the marriage because your partner doesn't want a sex life with you but yet is still engaging in duty sex with you out of obligation?

Which is better and which is worse?


----------



## Tiggy! (Sep 9, 2016)

inmyprime said:


> Which sex is supposed to be LD?
> Before all you ‘egalitarians’ eat me up, it’s important. Much harder for an LD guy to provide ‘starfish’ sex than for an LD woman.
> *
> I don’t see what the big deal is to have sex/‘accept’ duty sex (or ‘provide’ it) when it’s the woman who is LD. Just use a bit of lube or coconut oil and off you go, Caligula. For a guy: even a **** ring may not help achieve an erection so not that much you can do there...It’s just physics...
> ...


Having sex when not aroused is really painful in my experience, without sexual arousal the vagina doesn't elongate and the cervix doesn't ascend.


----------



## badsanta (Oct 13, 2014)

oldshirt said:


> This thought has been swirling around in my mind for awhile and when a recent post was made where it was referenced that a partner was simply "accomidating" the OP and that person had stated they would be fine not having sex again brought it up to the forefront of my mind on what the ethics of engaging in Duty/Starfish sex is on the behalf of the HD partner.
> 
> Taking things at face value that the LD partner has no innate interest in sex of their own but is simply accommodating the HD partner to presumably keep the HD partner from leaving or cheating or basically send the LD partner packing..... Is it actually ethical for the HD partner to accept it and have the LD partner doing something that she/he does not want to.
> 
> ...



In my opinion this is the manifesto of an HD's low self esteem, unwilling to accept love and unwilling to recognize a partner's affection. 

In a rare moment the LD was really in the mood and the HD somehow found himself/herself unable to respond sexually but was more than willing to accommodate their spouse with duty sex... why this would be the greatest honor and pleasure that one could ever hope for is it not?

Regards, 
Badsanta


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

We probably should be clear on what is meant by "sex". Some people use the term to mean "intercourse" others use it more broadly to include a wide range of sexual activities, like oral. 

I don't think anyone should let their partner do something that is actively uncomfortable (ignoring consensual BDSM etc), but I don't think it is wrong to turn down other activities. 


In many cases when people say that the LD partner is turning down "sex", they mean turning down "any sexual activity at all". That is at least what happens in my case. 





Tiggy! said:


> Having sex when not aroused is really painful in my experience, without sexual arousal the vagina doesn't elongate and the cervix doesn't ascend.


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

oldshirt said:


> I agree in principle in regards to "sometimes." I think everyone that has been married a number of years has accommodated their partner at some point when they themselves weren't really in the mood initially.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not talking about 'sometimes.' I am talking about when one partner has basically lost all desire for sex with their partner indefinitely and is pretty much just offering up some duty sex periodically to stay in the marriage.



Then the reality 99% of the time will be that there is something else wrong in the marriage. So the question changes form whether it is ethical to **** your partner if you don’t want to, to: what happened and how can we fix this.

You don’t just loose your drive completely for no reason whatsoever.
If my wife is not in the mood or bloated or under time pressure or whatever, it’s BJ time. And I find nothing ‘unethical’ about a good old fashioned BJ (as long as she sits on my face as well; otherwise I will not feel ‘the love’ 

If she looses the desire for anything sexual with me for good all of a sudden, it’s a good idea to maybe check if there’s a Dave in her office who she would rather suffocate with her vajayjay instead. Or change BC.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

Tiggy! said:


> Having sex when not aroused is really painful in my experience, without sexual arousal the vagina doesn't elongate and the cervix doesn't ascend.




I can believe that. However won’t the vajayjay respond to stimulus after a while, even if the woman didn’t especially want to have sex with her husband in the first place? Or is this wishful thinking.
I guess the man’s penis would respond too (unless the guy was scared or in panic; that’s the only time I find it hard to muster an erection). In which case he should take one for the team. But also figure out what the **** is wrong with the relationship: you don’t just loose attraction to someone out of nowhere. There are other reasons.
That said, incompatibilities in frequencies are common though. But those are not the scenarios OP is talking about.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Red Sonja (Sep 8, 2012)

inmyprime said:


> Before all you ‘egalitarians’ eat me up, it’s important. Much harder for an LD guy to provide ‘starfish’ sex than for an LD woman.


The male version is called tripod-sex, I experienced it with my my exH ... the man lays passively on his back with the attitude "hop on if you must". He also dished out the occasional angry shut-up-sex ... painful and not at all fun.


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

Red Sonja said:


> The male version is called tripod-sex, I experienced it with my my exH ... the man lays passively on his back with the attitude "hop on if you must". He also dished out the occasional angry shut-up-sex ... painful and not at all fun.


yikes


----------



## BluesPower (Mar 27, 2018)

While I am reticent to even answer this thread, for the silly comments that I get from all of the low sex,no sex guys, that think I am insane, I will give it a shot...

The basic answer is that the concept of accepting duty sex from anyone, is repugnant to me at every single level, and there are a lot of levels. 

I have never, and never would accept this in any kind of relationship or even some type of hookup. 

Further, if I got into a relationship like this or it became like this for whatever reason, that relationship would end. 

No I have never experienced this and I never would accept this. 

Now all the other variations that can be discussed, any medical problems, any actual physical problems aside like the original question specified, are different. 

Now, have I ever made love to a women when I did not start out in the mood, yes. Have I ever provided duty sex to a woman, never. If she wants to, I will get in the mood, and we will both enjoy it. 

This is not this exact type of case, but the other night we went to dinner, and she had some work that had to get done that I was going to help her with. 

And I was fixing what ever the thing was that I needed to fix for her, and was consecrating on that task...

I wanted to get the stuff done and then cuddle and make love. However, all of that stopped the moment that she came out of the bathroom with this SEXY pink top on with no bottoms. 

I believe that this was some type of test I guess I am not sure what she thought was going to happen when she came out, but you can guess. 

I am not completely sure why women do this, it seems easier if they just say, lets make love before we start working on this, but I have had many do this sort of thing. I am not sure what the test is, it really is not very hard to get me to have sex with a women that I am in love with, but it is a thing. 

How ever, the thought that I would be so desperate for sex that I would have sex with a woman that did not want to, is completely and totally disgusting to me.

While I know that the definition of HD and LD is relative to the partner, I believe that many men and woman pretend to be interested in sex before the marriage is final and then complete the bait and switch after the marriage is official. 

I think that is totally disgusting as well, and it completely makes no sense to me...


----------



## personofinterest (Apr 6, 2018)

The more I think about this thread, the more I wonder exactly what the Delius. 1st we assign an entire list of undesirable qualities in a blanket fashion to every man who is not getting enough 6. Then there's a thread talking about how a man who accepts duty sex is somehow unethical or maybe even a predator? What is the deal with this? I agree that if a man is that miserable without 6 he needs to take action, but what is with kicking all these men when they are down?

And blues, I am not referring to you. But this is the 2nd time a back handed insult thread has been started against man who are getting the 6 they want or need. Like I said, I don't really understand why these man gripe and gripe and yet continue to accept it. However, I would start being really annoyed if I were them. 1st there's a thread telling me all the things wrong with me and how inferior I am. Now there is a thread that all but calls me a rapist. I'm not sure what the ax is that we are grinding heater.

I will say this… while I may not understand it, I have a lot more respect for a man who is staying in a sexless marriage than I do a man who is committing sanctioned adultery and patting himself on the back for it.


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

BluesPower said:


> While I am reticent to even answer this thread, for the silly comments that I get from all of the low sex,no sex guys, that think I am insane, I will give it a shot...
> 
> The basic answer is that the concept of accepting duty sex from anyone, is repugnant to me at every single level, and there are a lot of levels.
> 
> ...


I guess for your situation, the relevant question might be: would it be ethical to have sex with someone who you know despises or disrespects you or your marriage and doing everything to drive the marriage into the ground but is happy to have sex with you nevertheless (sorry if I got it wrong). I don't know why there's so much emphasis on sex on this website: if different parts of a relationship/marriage are broken, it's the same difference: you need to fix those, if they are fixable. Then sex or whatever falls into place. Lack of sex is just a symptom as I keep saying.


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

oldshirt said:


> I'm not talking about 'sometimes.' I am talking about when one partner has basically lost all desire for sex with their partner indefinitely and is pretty much just offering up some duty sex periodically to stay in the marriage.


Well, seeing as this directly applies to me, here is my thinking.

Almost any choice is ethical so long as one is not making a choice primarily in order to hurt one's partner.
To me, as long as one's partner is fully competent to weigh their options and decide to offer duty sex, it is acceptable to have sex. It is equally acceptable to refuse the offer. The only choice that is unethical is to have sex if you know that it is not merely unappetizing to one's partner but is hurting them. Such as if they have a medical condition that makes sex painful or they have PTSD from an earlier trauma. In that case, refrain from sex until the medical problem or PTSD is addressed.

Is it ethical to divorce over a lack of sex? Yes. Even if one's spouse is willing to provide occasional duty sex? Still yes. No one is entitled to keep their spouse married against their will. One's spouse is not obliged to accept an offer of duty sex. And one's spouse is not obliged to remain married just because the LD spouse offers duty sex. It is perfectly acceptable to say "look, I want to be married to someone who desires me rather than tolerates me. I want to be married to someone who is enthusiastic about having sex with me rather than just enduring sex with me. I want someone who enjoys sex (with me) and not someone who can't wait for each sex session to end. And we both know you are not that person." Hurtful to hear that? Yes (if the LD wants to stay married - maybe they are glad the HD finally realized that are too mismatched to stay married and the LD didn't want to be the "bad guy or gal"). Unethical to say it? No.


----------



## SunCMars (Feb 29, 2016)

oldshirt said:


> Is it *ethical and moral* to have someone engaging in an activity that they don't want in order to maintain the relationship or keep someone from looking elsewhere for it?


We are talking about sex in a relationship, where one is HD, one LD.

This has absolutely nothing to do with ethics and morality. 
Nothing.


It has everything to do with compatibility.

If one of the marriage partners is low desire, simply does not enjoy sex, that is not immoral or unethical.
It is reality.

We are all wired differently.

The fact that the LD person tries to work through this 'normal to them' quirk in their nature is good.
They should be appreciated for their making the effort, for trying.

Rather than get upset with a partner who does not meet your needs due to their makeup, their chemistry, their cultural beliefs, just accept them for who they are.

*Or leave them.
*

I am not referencing those partners who use sex as a weapon or as a bargaining chip. 
Or, those partners who are hurtful liars and deceivers.


People are different, people change with time. 
They get more compatible, stay the same, get less compatible.

This is not unethical, or immoral, it is reality.

When choosing a partner for life, choose wisely.
And cross your fingers and your tiddedly-winker.


Just Sayin'


[THRD]


----------



## Ragnar Ragnasson (Mar 4, 2018)

@oldshirt

Durn, in your orig post you've covered all aspects of this topic! I haven't read all, but am starting. 

Another good topic!


----------



## BluesPower (Mar 27, 2018)

personofinterest said:


> The more I think about this thread, the more I wonder exactly what the Delius. 1st we assign an entire list of undesirable qualities in a blanket fashion to every man who is not getting enough 6. Then there's a thread talking about how a man who accepts duty sex is somehow unethical or maybe even a predator? What is the deal with this? I agree that if a man is that miserable without 6 he needs to take action, but what is with kicking all these men when they are down?
> 
> And blues, I am not referring to you. But this is the 2nd time a back handed insult thread has been started against man who are getting the 6 they want or need. Like I said, I don't really understand why these man gripe and gripe and yet continue to accept it. However, I would start being really annoyed if I were them. 1st there's a thread telling me all the things wrong with me and how inferior I am. Now there is a thread that all but calls me a rapist. I'm not sure what the ax is that we are grinding heater.
> 
> I will say this… while I may not understand it, I have a lot more respect for a man who is staying in a sexless marriage than I do a man who is committing sanctioned adultery and patting himself on the back for it.


Here is where I disagree with you. The problem is that these low sex/no sex guys, complain about their lack of sex, and the look for advice and commiseration for the fact that their lives are like this. 

Now, I guess we could have a forum that says is you are having sex you may not post here. Maybe that would solve the problem. 

Any person that is WILLING to stay in a low/no sex marriage, I have no respect for, if in fact they want to have sex. 

I that case you are allowing yourself to remain miserable and complaining about it and wanting it to change. 

The other part of this equation that you are talking about, is reality. There are men and woman that, for whatever reason, do not know anything about sex, and some of them are old enough to know better. I find this sad. 

I realize that my view is simplistic, I get that. But for me the way that it works is this, I like women, I like sex, I love being in love. Now, I don't have to be in love to have great sex, but being in love makes great sex better. Sex is important to me. 

Whatever women that I am with, may love me for many things, because basically I am a great guy. But one of the things they love me for is great sex. Sorry but it is. I am ok with that. 

Sometimes I do get worried at times when my GF, who is very lovey dovey outside of the bedroom, but when we are having sex, she does make a point to say how much she loves me during sex. Now I am not saying that saying that is a bad thing, but I really don't want that to be the only reason a woman loves me.

I would not be in a relationship with a woman who was not sexual. Now, I have had the pleasure of helping several women actually understand what great sex is. And they may be better at sex now, but they were sexual woman before they met me. 

I don't understand all the duty sex, low sex, no sex marriages, and those situations. I don't understand why anyone would stay in those relationships, and I never will. 

So I guess my basic disagreement with @personofinterest actually is... is 1) I do not think it is honorable to stay in a low/no sex marriage. It is not honest with yourself or the other person, 2) if something is not working for you, and you do nothing to change it, I personally feel you should not complain about it.

What do you think?


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

BluesPower said:


> Here is where I disagree with you. The problem is that these low sex/no sex guys, complain about their lack of sex, and the look for advice and commiseration for the fact that their lives are like this.
> 
> Now, I guess we could have a forum that says is you are having sex you may not post here. Maybe that would solve the problem.
> 
> ...


That's because people change, circumstances change. Dumping someone because they are going through a bad patch (or the marriage is going through a bad patch) and not sleeping with you on demand may not always be the best option. The change may not always be for the better. It could be better at first, but then will became exactly the same or worse. If I dumped my wife every time she wasn't in the mood I would have missed out on a lot of things...including a lot of great sex.

I think what maybe PoI is trying to say is that it takes courage to work on an ailing marriage rather than give up or cheat. Obviously if you tried everything and it still doesn't work, you have to look at other options. Unless the life is not that bad, even with little sex, some people can still have a happy-ish marriage. And lets face it, most couples are happy-ish and there's nothing wrong with that. Only the ones who met yesterday are screaming from the roof tops how amazing their relationship is (ok, give it 6-12 months, the tune may change quickly not that it always does, but it often does. At least people get back to reality).


----------



## jorgegene (May 26, 2012)

in the old days before women's liberation, it was often a given that the price of marriage for a woman in exchange for a family, comfortable living
and security was for the woman to accept a hairy beast on top of her at request.

sometimes probably they enjoyed it, often (maybe more often than not) they didn't particularly (especially since most people delayed sex until after marriage).
but it was accepted and often just a given. in many if not most cases i suppose, it was just accepted by the husband and wife. a typical scenario might be
that the man provided a paycheck and expected sex. the woman in many cases just accepted the hairy beast on top of her for 15-20 minutes every day or every other day, and life went on.
unethical? in my opinion, probably not in most cases by either party unless there was physical abuse and overtly hurtful sex.
remember, during this period (thousand of years?) marital rape was not even accepted as a crime because again, it was just a 'given'.

now, having said that, i personally hate this scenario (but not saying it's unethical). in fact, I was personally in a relationship with a woman who hated sex.
so i left her alone. I would rather be sexless than force my self or even coerce myself upon someone. I can live without sex.
i eventually left her, as she was just plain frigid to the point of abusiveness.

for me, sex is about mutual love and not about sex. but that's just me.


----------



## personofinterest (Apr 6, 2018)

As I said, @BluesPower, I was not referring to your post. 

I'll be clearer

The OP made a thread basically listing how pathetic guys who don't get sex are.

Now he has started another thread implying they are rapists.

I'm not sure what the chip on his shoulder is.


----------



## Bananapeel (May 4, 2015)

It's not unethical at all because each couple gets to decide what is right for them and what they want to accept for their sex life. I wouldn't personally accept that deal and would do a "bye, Felicia", but I don't fault anyone that does because it is their sole prerogative to choose.


----------



## BluesPower (Mar 27, 2018)

inmyprime said:


> That's because people change, circumstances change. Dumping someone because they are going through a bad patch (or the marriage is going through a bad patch) and not sleeping with you on demand may not always be the best option. The change may not always be for the
> 
> I think what maybe PoI is trying to say is that it takes courage to work on an ailing marriage rather than give up or cheat. Obviously if you tried everything and it still doesn't work, you have to look at other better. It could be better at first, but then will became exactly the same or worse. If I dumped my wife every time she wasn't in the mood I would have missed out on a lot of things...including a lot of great sex.
> 
> options. Unless the life is not that bad, even with little sex, some people can still have a happy-ish marriage. And lets face it, most couples are happy-ish and there's nothing wrong with that. Only the ones who met yesterday are screaming from the roof tops how amazing their relationship is (ok, give it 6-12 months, the tune may change quickly not that it always does, but it often does. At least people get back to reality).


I was going to reply to post before last. I am not sure that I understood what you were saying...

But in this one, it sounds like, you are thinking of every conceivable exception except that those were covered in the opening post I think. 

Now, myself, I have never said that if there was some type of issue in the marriage, that needed to be worked out, that I would not try to fix whatever it was, to a point. 

That point may be shorter for some than other. 

However, as many threads have shown here, there are guys, and I guess some women, that are doing everything imaginable to "Fix" the no sex issue, and it is not working. 

And, there is a well know thread of a man just like that, where his wife basically said, I'm done with sex, after he struggled with a low sex marriage FOR 30 years. In the end she was honest, I am not attracted to you that way anymore, now he gets it. 

For the record, I have had issues with relationships and worked through them, just never sexual ones...

But the thread is about accepting duty sex, and I find that completely disgusting personally. I would neither accept or provide that for anyone...

And also, your use of the word "demand", you know people throw that word around a lot. I have never demanded or even asked for sex in my life, it happens naturally or it does not happen, I find that word repugnant as well...

Being older than you, I have a different opinion of love and sex than you do it think. 

I do not settle for happy-ish. I am happy or I am not happy. A woman is either madly in love with me or she is not. Not middle ground. Black or white. If she is not, she is gone, if she is she gets to stay with me.


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

BluesPower said:


> I was going to reply to post before last. I am not sure that I understood what you were saying...



Sorry I wasn’t clear. If I remember your situation correctly, you were still having sex with your ex wife even though you knew your marriage was over and she was disrespecting you in other ways. Some may find this unethical too. 
(It wasn’t meant as a dig; but many here a quick to judge, myself included. There’s a lot that doesn’t meet the eye and knowing coupes in real life, it is not always so easy to just leave and start over).



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Mr. Nail (Apr 26, 2011)

Ragnar Ragnasson said:


> @oldshirt
> 
> Durn, in your orig post you've covered all aspects of this topic! I haven't read all, but am starting.
> 
> Another good topic!


I find ONE glaring fault in the original post.

Ethically speaking there is plenty of precedent saying that whatever 2 consenting adults agree on is OK.


----------



## BluesPower (Mar 27, 2018)

personofinterest said:


> As I said, @BluesPower, I was not referring to your post.
> 
> I'll be clearer
> 
> ...


I get what you are saying. I don't believe that about @oldshirt though. I think he is genuinely interested in this subject probably because it is so foreign to him. 

I personally feel bad to an extent for the men and woman in these situations. When I was a different person, I was in fact guilty of meeting married woman's sexual needs, and maybe that is why I am sensitive to this issue. I have seen how much it has hurt some woman, I am sure that men feel the same way.

But I do stick by my point, most of the time, if everything is equal so to speak, if your wife does not want to have sex with you, it is because she is not attracted to you. Bottom line. All the low sex guys hate to hear that and they spend YEARS looking for the answer instead of just looking at reality. 

For me, if the relationship is not healthy sexually, then it is not a romantic relationship, and there for it should end.


----------



## BluesPower (Mar 27, 2018)

inmyprime said:


> Sorry I wasn’t clear. If I remember your situation correctly, you were still having sex with your ex wife even though you knew your marriage was over and she was disrespecting you in other ways. Some may find this unethical too.
> (It wasn’t meant as a dig; but many here a quick to judge, myself included. There’s a lot that doesn’t meet the eye and knowing coupes in real life, it is not always so easy to just leave and start over).


Oh, I get you now. Well, at the end of the marriage, yes I hated her and I still do. She was just too wasted at that time for me in good conscience to divorce her and possible let her over dose or whatever. 

I have since changed my mind about those types of things. That marriage had a lot of problems, but us enjoying sex together and mutually wanting to have sex was not one of them. 

Since I have been free of that marriage, I have changed many of my idea about those things. I have become more aware in general I think. However, my concept of sexual relationship has not changed.


----------



## Ragnar Ragnasson (Mar 4, 2018)

Mr. Nail said:


> I find ONE glaring fault in the original post.
> 
> Ethically speaking there is plenty of precedent saying that whatever 2 consenting adults agree on is OK.


There is the above, I agree; if it's the two adults involved, (which i believed is inferred by the "two consenting adults" statement).

And one more, which was early in the thread addressed; is the LD M or F in the marriage. 

Whereas it's been addressed as could be either, it seems that it's if the F is LD, at least many answers tend to respond as if so. I'm going to comment in future as if that's the case.

For now only this: if the M, even if in the rare cases I wasn't in the mood and time critical action wasn't needed for serious other item, I quickly volunteered to get in the mood. 

Being concious of and not projecting, from historical vantage, friends old and new; this (for most) getting in the mood isn't really thought of as "duty sex" but "hey I want to if you want to".

Still, I think this a great, although can be sensitive, topic for discussion!


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

personofinterest said:


> As I said, @BluesPower, I was not referring to your post.
> 
> I'll be clearer
> 
> ...



WHOE WAIT A MINUTE, I HAVE NOT SAID OR IMPLIED ANY SUCH THING!!!!

I raised the question of the ethical considerations of accepting duty sex. 

I clearly stated it was not an issue of consent, molestation or assault. 

Any further implications are of your own imaginations and agendas.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

Mr. Nail said:


> I find ONE glaring fault in the original post.
> 
> Ethically speaking there is plenty of precedent saying that whatever 2 consenting adults agree on is OK.


I asked for people's input and perspective on the ethical ramifications of accepting or declining duty sex. It was a question posed for discussion.

I did not myself state any ethical position, so I do not see how there is "fault." 

People are offering their opinions and discussions. You may agree with some and disagree with some of the opinions presented.


----------



## Mr. Nail (Apr 26, 2011)

Darvo!


----------



## Mr. Nail (Apr 26, 2011)

to address your rebuttal: 
Is there an ethical problem with accepting duty (etc. ) sex? - No, because one consenting adult is offering sex and another consenting adult is accepting sex. 
Is there an ethical problem with declining duty (etc. ) sex? - No, because no one is ever required to accept sex.
The dilemma is in your mind. There is only an ethical question if there is coercion.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Conan doesn't care.

Conan takes woman.

Barbarian sex and responsive desire.

Works most of the time.


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

If you don’t know if it’s duty sex (and it feels the same) does it matter?
Maybe my whole marriage is just one big duty...Sometimes you wonder.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

And, no, it isn't unethical. To the OP.


----------



## BluesPower (Mar 27, 2018)

Mr. Nail said:


> to address your rebuttal:
> Is there an ethical problem with accepting duty (etc. ) sex? - No, because one consenting adult is offering sex and another consenting adult is accepting sex.
> Is there an ethical problem with declining duty (etc. ) sex? - No, because no one is ever required to accept sex.
> The dilemma is in your mind. There is only an ethical question if there is coercion.


No I am sorry, I have to disagree. People are different, I get that. 

But for me, man, no way. I am in no way saying that accepting duty sex is rape, as it is not. 

But in terms of personal ethics or personal morality, I have never and could never accept this. 

I am not interested in having sex with a woman that does not want to have sex with me, it just grosses me out, for me it would FEEL like some kind of rape. 

I don't use prostitutes, while as a libertarian, I am fine if they engage in prostitution, it is just not something that I can do. 

I just cannot go where some of these folks are going. I personally cannot do it, and would not do it.


----------



## Mr. Nail (Apr 26, 2011)

Don't confuse personal boundaries with ethics. This whole thread is about applying one person's feeling to ethics. 

The prostitution example is apt. You agree to let people engage in prostitution because it is ethically sound, But you do not participate, not because it is wrong, but because it is against your personal boundaries. 

By and large we have as a society determined that whatever consenting adults do privately is ethically ok. We have also decided that no person should be obligated to have sex with anyone. These are ethics not preferences. 

So back to the original question. If a lower drive spouse decides out of love, kindness or desperation, but not coercion, to engage in some sort of sex with their higher drive spouse, and if the higher drive spouse decides, but is not coerced, to accept the sex. Then we as outsiders have no right to disrespect them for those decisions. 

Your mileage may vary. and your personal feelings might be bent, but we are not here to talk about feelings or personal boundaries (which I agree are very important) we are talking about ethics. There is a great deal of pressure right now to change ethics. To rewrite expectations, to adjust rules to accommodate feelings. But until these new ethics gain the weight of precedent, they are just personal boundaries.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

Mr. Nail said:


> Don't confuse personal boundaries with ethics. This whole thread is about applying one person's feeling to ethics.
> 
> The prostitution example is apt. You agree to let people engage in prostitution because it is ethically sound, But you do not participate, not because it is wrong, but because it is against your personal boundaries.
> 
> ...


But in the end it does come down to the individual and societal norms and customs occur when a certain number of individuals or authority figures say it is so. 

And lets not confuse personal rights and legalities with ethics. Society may have determined that adults consenting to legal activities without coercion is ok, but that doesn't always mean that they aren't A-holes. 

George Zimmerman had a legal right to carry a gun. He was within his legal right to ask Treyvon Martin what he was doing. And he was in his legal right to shoot Martin when he was attacked and feared for his life. …...but that doesn't mean he wasn't an A-hole and that doesn't mean that he was acting ethically when he took it upon himself to confront Martin. 

Having the right to do something doesn't automatically mean it's the right thing to do. 

Yes you are correct, outsiders do not have a right to point fingers at two consenting adults having duty sex within the privacy of their own home. But the questions posed wasn't about whether people had the right to do something - that was assumed to be yes. 

The question posed was is it the right thing to do? 

Is it the right thing to do to accept an activity from someone that does not want to do it? Is it the right thing to do to not do it since they don't want to, but realizing that over time the relationship will likely break down? Is it the right thing to do to dissolve the relationship because the other party does not want to engage in an activity that you want even though they agree to do it out of obligation? 

It's not really about rights or whether someone is in the right or the wrong in the eyes of society or the law. It is about what is the more right thing to do.


Some have answered yes. some have answered no. You will get that with any ethical question.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

And let's also keep in mind that this is an internet relationship forum and not a university ethics course where everyone's papers has to follow a standardized format with predetermined definitions and standards. 

I posed the questions and asked people what they think and asked them to discuss their thoughts and opinions. I'm gathering various perspectives and outlooks. I am not grading papers. I appreciate the discussion and not here to grade how closely someone follows my definition of the word ethics or what I think the world should be. 

Personal preferences and opinions are encouraged and appreciated.


----------



## DTO (Dec 18, 2011)

personofinterest said:


> Interesting question.
> 
> I have an additional one:
> 
> Is it ethical to enter into a marriage with someone who has a high need/desire for sex, knowing you do not?



No. Implicit in the marriage agreement (for most people, anyways) is that your partner will provide a sex life that is a source of pleasure - one that makes you feel good about the relationship. If you know you don't desire sex as much as they do, you're basically lying.

An exception to this would be if the LD partner makes it known in advance that a high level of sex is not in the cards, but I can't see a situation where the LD partner basically says "I love you but don't like sex that much, will you marry me?"


----------



## DTO (Dec 18, 2011)

I don't think I have an ethical duty to accept duty or "starfish" sex (defined as sex where the non-desiring partner just lays there and allows the act to happen) from my spouse.

The reason? I don't think that providing starfish sex meets your responsibility to your partner. Your responsibility to your partner is to provide a sex life that makes him or her feel good about that aspect of the marriage. Merely allowing use of your body does not meet that standard (for the vast majority of us, anyways).

Since "starfish" sex does not meet your responsibility to provide a positive sex life, your partner is under no obligation to accept it. In fact, I think accepting "starfish" sex is a bad idea, as it legitimizes this activity and just perpetuates the issues that brought the relationship to this point.

Even if you are rarely (or perhaps never) "horny", you alwyas can have sex with your partner in a warm, generous, loving manner that conveys your regard for your partner and respect for your relationship. And you can do so with regularity. So, there really is no excuse for starfish sex.

ETA: I certainly can accept starfish sex if I want. If it is being offered to me and I not forcing someone into it, then I am free to do so. My point is that I am not ethically bound to do so.


----------



## In Absentia (Aug 21, 2012)

Why is it unethical? We all grown-ups and we can accept or refuse... we can divorce over it. We can choose to accept duty sex for many reasons. As long as nobody is forced into anything, fine. The LD spouse agreeing to duty sex as a form to please the other partner is commendable, IMO, especially if the duty sex is given con a pinch of enthusiasm. Starfish a little less appealing. So, to me, duty sex is ok, but IF the LD spouse is able to get into it to a certain extent.


----------



## BluesPower (Mar 27, 2018)

In Absentia said:


> Why is it unethical? We all grown-ups and we can accept or refuse... we can divorce over it. We can choose to accept duty sex for many reasons. As long as nobody is forced into anything, fine. The LD spouse agreeing to duty sex as a form to please the other partner is commendable, IMO, especially if the duty sex is given con a pinch of enthusiasm. Starfish a little less appealing. So, to me, duty sex is ok, but IF the LD spouse is able to get into it to a certain extent.


Which, and no offense in any way, may be the reason that you are in the situation that you are currently in. 

Does that correlation make any sense to you? 

And, are you any closer to a decision that you were a couple weeks back?


----------



## In Absentia (Aug 21, 2012)

BluesPower said:


> Which, and no offense in any way, may be the reason that you are in the situation that you are currently in.
> 
> Does that correlation make any sense to you?
> 
> And, are you any closer to a decision that you were a couple weeks back?


maybe... but it was enough for me because the most important thing to me was to keep the family together. And she was showing to me that she still cared... now that sex has stopped completely, it's a different kettle of fish.

I have talked to a solicitor... and to my daughter... I will give you an update in my thread... don't want to highjack this one... :smile2:


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

BluesPower said:


> Which, and no offense in any way, may be the reason that you are in the situation that you are currently in.
> 
> Does that correlation make any sense to you?
> 
> And, are you any closer to a decision that you were a couple weeks back?


This is exactly what I was thinking as well when I read that.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

irreconcilable differences

Some might not mind if they can get off regularly, so they don't feel poorly. I figure, they know they are doing their part to show their partner they love and want them and sort of justify whatever they can get with those actions. 

Some might not be able to justify any sex the partner is not really into, though in truth, as long as there is no coercion, badgering, harassment, blackmail or extorsion, the partner must want to provide that service. Maybe the partner even feels so much love for them, they want them to be happy. 


What the answer really boils down to is what the partner receiving the offered sex feels about it. If they determine they can't live with it because it feels creepy, then a change must be made. It's unlikely the LD will feel differently, though it is sometimes worth it to try, if they can figure out what the cause of their low libido is and it is something that can be modified with diet, exercise, medication that doesn't cause harmful side effects, or therapy for some issues from a traumatic experience. 

That last one is tough, because no one knows if they can change. It's taking a chance.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

Two consenting adults doing something that is neither illegal or unsafe. No ethical question there.

The only "ethics" question here is what you are willing to accept as it relates to your level of self respect or tolerance for a relationship with a substandard element.


----------



## Ragnar Ragnasson (Mar 4, 2018)

BluesPower said:


> No I am sorry, I have to disagree. People are different, I get that.
> 
> But for me, man, no way. I am in no way saying that accepting duty sex is rape, as it is not.
> 
> ...


How about quickies? 

As a personal example, for the 90% of encounters with lovely W there are at least two sometimes more Os for her.

Balanced with a "quickie" or two here and there. Which is about me, that's true, but in the big picture it suits dear W.
Ragnar takes sometimes 😛😛😛

That's not duty sex there, but maybe one sided here and there. And that's a good pattern for us.


----------



## BluesPower (Mar 27, 2018)

Ragnar Ragnasson said:


> How about quickies?
> 
> As a personal example, for the 90% of encounters with lovely W there are at least two sometimes more Os for her.
> 
> ...


The point is, it is not duty sex. Now, quickies are not really a thing for me, it usually takes me too long. 

But, if time is short, and GF is horny, I try to be as quick as I can. Our issue is never enough O's for her. 

I am the one that takes a lot of time to get there. But I still enjoy it, and if she wants it, that is not duty sex either. 

So I think your point is different, that where I was coming from. But for me, about the quickest I can get there is about a half an hour and that is working really hard.


----------



## Mr. Nail (Apr 26, 2011)

As to that other kettle of fish . . . 
a few months ago mrs. nail reduced our sexual frequency which had been 8 x per month by 6. There was no conversation , explanation or negotiation. Just 8-6.
I went along with this for a few months, but eventually decided that I could reduce the frequency by 2 per month. It could be said that we two consenting adults decided together to have a sexless marriage. But there was actually no discussion, formal agreement, contract, or for that matter "heated comment". 
It may very well be that neither of us happy with the current state. There is no way to know as no conversation about sex is allowed.


----------



## Ragnar Ragnasson (Mar 4, 2018)

I'd bring it up to her if it's important to you. 

There has to be a way to talk about sex with W?

Even if she says she doesn't want to talk about it, if you start and just continue she'd at least have to hear?

You could then look back and know you at least did convey to her your position. 

It may lead to a different circumstance or not, but for your piece of mind you know you tried.


----------



## Mr. Nail (Apr 26, 2011)

Ragnar Ragnasson said:


> I'd bring it up to her if it's important to you.
> 
> There has to be a way to talk about sex with W?
> 
> ...


Ever talked to the back of a book? I would say that over 30 years she has gone from no problem to uncomfortable to active avoidance to straight up refusal. If I did what you say, She would just get up and go to another room. We are way too old for that blocking the doorway kind of stuff. in the end I don't know what my position is. I do know that I have acted without coercion, threat or malice. 

To get back to the topic. Ethically I'm ok with me pulling out the last straw. She pulled the straw before it. It's not a she hit first, but rather if you offer this level of engagement, and I reject your offer. I tried it and it didn't work for me. We are both adults and we are both fully aware of the damage being done due to our actions/decisions.


----------



## Ragnar Ragnasson (Mar 4, 2018)

BluesPower said:


> The point is, it is not duty sex. Now, quickies are not really a thing for me, it usually takes me too long.
> 
> But, if time is short, and GF is horny, I try to be as quick as I can. Our issue is never enough O's for her.
> 
> ...


Yep, I see what you're saying.

On the pure question, is it ethical to accept starfish sex, here's my answer:

Part of me says I'd take it when I wanted and not feel bad about it, if all else was ok/good in the M.

It would get old. I'd consider it a challenge, yet as an older person know that circumstance eventually wear on me, and perhaps her. Causing additional problems. 

Accept it as a forever condition? Not likely. 

Is it purely ethical? Yes, as one adult is offering and one is accepting. 

When all else is good but if starfish for years, the threshold for a change would loom nearer, and the relationship "closeness" would rot, making a flimsy shelter if any stormy weather. That's a risk I believe the starfish may believe is acceptable - when aware of that, one may ponder if a W knows that, does W herself want a change?

That thought would further loosen the ties, unconsciously or even consciously. 

There would have to be major communication for ongoing starfish to not be harmful to a relationship. 

Because part of a male would have to turn off, to endure long term starfish whether he thought ok to "take it" or not. 

The part that may include the enduring need to take care of and protect a mate at all costs. That would be sad.

Clear as mud.


----------



## BluesPower (Mar 27, 2018)

Ragnar Ragnasson said:


> Yep, I see what you're saying.
> 
> On the pure question, is it ethical to accept starfish sex, here's my answer:
> 
> ...


I get what you are saying. And that probably works for a lot of people. 

I am just saying for me, I am all about passion and sex and love. So duty sex, while I have never had that would be completely unappealing to me. 

I am a little older I think, but I am about the love and the passion. While my GF feels the same, if she did not it would not work out. And she would not be the first. I bring a lot to the table and if a woman wants to be with me, then she has to bring it as well. 

If they don't feel the same way, OK, cool, see you later. Not that I don't get may heart broken every now and then because I have, but I know what I want, and I don't settle...


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

@Ragnar Ragnasson: You do not have to wonder. I can tell you. Yes, once you realize it is starfish as a forever condition, you stop wanting it. You stop being able to accept the offer. And yes, a part of you turns off. Part of yourself. And part of how you feel about your wife. 

Maybe your wife leaves when part of you turns off toward her. But maybe she stays, realizing that she is part of the problem. And that, if she leaves, she will likely have to have sex with the next guy. And if she is a "starfish forever" kind of gal, then she probably prefers to stay with a guy who doesn't feel toward her the way she wishes he felt (but is willing to stay with her anyway), rather than move on to a guy who only feels the way she wants him to feel because he insists that she have sex with him and she gives in to keep him around. The "starfish forever" gal prefers the absence of sexual demands over the presence of the full range of love and devotion. That is what caused her to be a "starfish forever" gal in the first place. It wasn't worth it to her to find a way to provide more than starfish in order to maintain the love and devotion that her husband (presumably) felt at the beginning. She let those feelings die. Some would say she killed them off. She watched them depart. And did nothing to keep them around.


----------



## blahfridge (Dec 6, 2014)

oldshirt said:


> This thought has been swirling around in my mind for awhile and when a recent post was made where it was referenced that a partner was simply "accomidating" the OP and that person had stated they would be fine not having sex again brought it up to the forefront of my mind on what the ethics of engaging in Duty/Starfish sex is on the behalf of the HD partner.
> 
> Taking things at face value that the LD partner has no innate interest in sex of their own but is simply accommodating the HD partner to presumably keep the HD partner from leaving or cheating or basically send the LD partner packing..... Is it actually ethical for the HD partner to accept it and have the LD partner doing something that she/he does not want to.
> 
> ...


You forgot one important possible scenario. What if the LD partner is servicing (as you put it) the HD partner out a desire to please his/her partner because he/she loved their partner?


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

blahfridge said:


> You forgot one important possible scenario. What if the LD partner is servicing (as you put it) the HD partner out a desire to please his/her partner because he/she loved their partner?


I would imagine that the HD would be able to tell if the offer is motivated by love and a desire to please, or is motivated by fear of loss. However, some of us are very thick-skulled and dull-witted, and take a long time to notice the difference. It took me 23 years. :slap:


----------



## anonmd (Oct 23, 2014)

Holdingontoit said:


> I would imagine that the HD would be able to tell if the offer is motivated by love and a desire to please, or is motivated by fear of loss. However, some of us are very thick-skulled and dull-witted, and take a long time to notice the difference. It took me 23 years. :slap:



23, 20 - yeah that's about right, and yes that situation / motivation is valid.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

blahfridge said:


> You forgot one important possible scenario. What if the LD partner is servicing (as you put it) the HD partner out a desire to please his/her partner because he/she loved their partner?


I didn't forget anything.

I just don't see that that changes any of the questions I posed. 

If some is giving up duty/starfish sex out of obligation and they don't actually want to have sex with their partner, I don't see that it would really make a difference if it was for love or fear of divorce, loss of support, because their grandmother told them to etc etc etc etc. 

If someone doesn't want to have sex with you, it doesn't really matter if they love you or not IMHO as the simple fact remains that if they are doing duty sex, they are doing something they don't want and don't like.


----------



## In Absentia (Aug 21, 2012)

oldshirt said:


> This is exactly what I was thinking as well when I read that.


I stayed because, although I could see it was some kind of duty sex, when we had it it was very good, she said she loved me and I really really fancy her as a woman. So, she had limitations, but I knew it wasn't 100% her fault and she was doing her best. Do you dump a family and children for that? It was enough. Now it's gone the opposite way and it's not acceptable anymore... and there are no small children. Probably she did it to keep the family together, but at least when she took part, she was enthusiastic... :laugh:

Does it make sense?


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

In Absentia said:


> I stayed because, although I could see it was some kind of duty sex, when we had it it was very good, she said she loved me and I really really fancy her as a woman. So, she had limitations, but I knew it wasn't 100% her fault and she was doing her best. Do you dump a family and children for that? It was enough. Now it's gone the opposite way and it's not acceptable anymore... and there are no small children. Probably she did it to keep the family together, but at least when she took part, she was enthusiastic... :laugh:
> 
> Does it make sense?


It make perfect sense. 

But we are talking about ethics here so there is no cut and dried answer. 

You believed the more right thing to do was to accept the duty/starfish sex and keep the family under one roof. To you that was the more ethical course of action at that time. 

There are others that would have seen it differently and taken a different course of action.


----------



## In Absentia (Aug 21, 2012)

oldshirt said:


> It make perfect sense.
> 
> But we are talking about ethics here so there is no cut and dried answer.
> 
> ...


Of course... to me, keeping the family together was more ethical than divorcing for irregular sex. If we didn't have any sex, it would have been different, but we did and it was good when we did. So, it's never black and white, even in ethical discussions... :smile2:


----------



## Ragnar Ragnasson (Mar 4, 2018)

All the good posts above and for future good posts; these are the reasons I believed right off the bat this was a topic ripe for discussion.

The answer yes/no is cut and dried for a straight up/down vote which provides insight from similar but varied directions and the discussions on varied existing or theoretical circumstances provides what appears to be common and shared opinions. At least to me.

If the spouse is doing it for true love for their spouse, wouldn't that make it just bad or only reasonable sex? Would that be duty sex? In my mind it could still be, but I could be wrong.

Years of starfish sex would be an issue. 

I'm sure there are varied opinions on that. I believe in many circumstances it would, and in my current opinion should, cause a split.

But I don't have kids at home anymore, but still. Again, when talking about theoretical if one is enduring, the direction may be muddied re when the change, is it forecast to change back, how long, other.

Barring other or medical, which is not a given guideline in our current example; I'd say the starfishing would be a reason to investigate a change.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

oldshirt said:


> ……. and just for the sake of argument, let's assume that all parties involved are normal, decent people acting in good faith and that the disparity of desire has been discussed repeatedly, MC attended, solutions sought and that no one has gained 100lbs or stopped showering or anything and that the relationship is otherwise functional and sound.


I don't even see why this is a question, so long as the (relatively) LD partner doesn't feel abused by cooperating. If he or she *does *feel abused, that is a big problem that probably can't be solved short of divorce.

Of course such sexual activity might not be that much fun for the other person, but that is different from its being an ethical problem.


----------



## personofinterest (Apr 6, 2018)

"I don't even see why this is a question, so long as the (relatively) LD partner doesn't feel abused by cooperating. If he or she does feel abused, that is a big problem that probably can't be solved short of divorce."

Exactly

Which is why it doesn't make sense. Unless the goal is to imply that it is on ethical to accept duty sex, the whole premise makes no sense at all.


----------



## anonmd (Oct 23, 2014)

Ragnar Ragnasson said:


> All the good posts above and for future good posts; these are the reasons I believed right off the bat this was a topic ripe for discussion.
> 
> The answer yes/no is cut and dried for a straight up/down vote which provides insight from similar but varied directions and the discussions on varied existing or theoretical circumstances provides what appears to be common and shared opinions. At least to me.
> 
> ...


Me thinks in this area one can only comment on ones actual experience. It is all a variable over a lifetime. 

Personally,I had 20 years of almost all great sex but for the vast majority of that the actual frequency just sucked - think once a month if you are lucky for years, maybe a decade? Took me the entire 20 years to come to the realization there was nothing I could do turn that around, she had to have control and was not influenced at all by anything I did. So I let go of the rope and told her if she wanted control so much it is all yours but once a month sucks. Then a while later I told or once or twice a month sucks. Eventually we came to an accommodation that I can live with. 

She's now past menopause which is another basic ****show so compared to a decade ago it is definitely more duty'ish but you know, it is what she can offer with a good attitude. No 'ethical second thoughts' involved. I kinda regret not having the showdown 10 or 15 years ago but I'm not sure I could have had that conversation at the time and if it had split us up it would have been a regret. There were a small handful of starfish encounters and that would have definitely not been OK long term. in the midst of one of them I stopped when I realized what was going on and she was definitely not happy about it - wake up call.

So, we each make our choices at the time. Personally I think the vows are pretty important, especially after kids come.


----------



## BluesPower (Mar 27, 2018)

tech-novelist said:


> I don't even see why this is a question, so long as the (relatively) LD partner doesn't feel abused by cooperating. If he or she *does *feel abused, that is a big problem that probably can't be solved short of divorce.
> 
> Of course such sexual activity might not be that much fun for the other person, but that is different from its being an ethical problem.





personofinterest said:


> "I don't even see why this is a question, so long as the (relatively) LD partner doesn't feel abused by cooperating. If he or she does feel abused, that is a big problem that probably can't be solved short of divorce."
> 
> Exactly
> 
> Which is why it doesn't make sense. Unless the goal is to imply that it is on ethical to accept duty sex, the whole premise makes no sense at all.


Not at all guys. Some people want good sex, and some people think all they can get is starfish. 

I am one of the people that will not accept duty sex. If that ever happed to me, it has not, I would find another girl post haste. 

I don't even understand...


----------



## anonmd (Oct 23, 2014)

That's fine for you. How old are you, how many years married, how many kids?


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

BluesPower said:


> Not at all guys. Some people want good sex, and some people thing all they can get is starfish.
> 
> I am one of the people that will not accept duty sex. If that ever happed to me, it has not, I would find another girl post haste.
> 
> I don't even understand...


That is the point. You don't have the kinds of experiences that would permit you to understand.

It is like men trying to understand what it is like to be female and be harassed and mistreated everywhere you go. To be in fear of harassment and abuse everywhere you go. To have to worry every time you put on clothes and makeup what kind of signals you are sending, and to be on guard constantly lest they be misinterpreted. Men don't have to do this on a daily basis, so they have no frame of reference to even imagine what it is like to deal with it just about every time you leave your home. And sometimes when you are inside your home.

Some of us have never had a decent sexual relationship in our lives. Not before marriage. Not after. Never been with a woman who seemed to thoroughly enjoy herself. Never been with a woman who wanted more after the session was over (at least not one who was willing to stay in the relationship - getting dumped because the first session was so awful that it was obvious further incidents would not lead to sufficient improvement is one of life's particularly cruel twists). If you have been averaging one or two or six sexual sessions per year for over a decade, and you find a woman who is willing to provide starfish sex on a weekly basis, well, that seems like heaven. For some of us it takes a LONG time to realize the dynamics involved if all she ever offers is starfish sex. Especially if the decline in frequency is gradual. Since there are never incredibly passionate sessions, there isn't any noticeable decline in the quality of sex. And if it starts when there are young children at home so the "I am tired" and "I am touched out" excuses seem reasonable on their face.

It is only after years of decline that you realize you are back to the one or two or six times a year from before you were married. And you remember that you were just as miserable back then. And you remember that you got married in large part to NOT have to be that miserable over the absence of sex in your life. And then you realize exactly what has been happening. And that you should have left years ago. Maybe even at the beginning. Or maybe you should never have gotten married in the first place. But the person you were back then did not know any better.

This isn't an excuse. It is an explanation.


----------



## BluesPower (Mar 27, 2018)

anonmd said:


> That's fine for you. How old are you, how many years married, how many kids?


You are either new or just came back, I have been though this before...

I am 54, I was married for 26 years, raised 3 kids, have one Grandchild, I have never, dealt with duty sex, and I never will. 

Current, and the best GF, is 60, she is post menopausal, it does not affect her one single bit. In fact she says that is it better in general than it ever has been for her. She is getting the post meno boost that some women get. 

So, look I have been through all of the trials and tribulations, it does not work that way for me...




Holdingontoit said:


> That is the point. You don't have the kinds of experiences that would permit you to understand.
> 
> It is like men trying to understand what it is like to be female and be harassed and mistreated everywhere you go. To be in fear of harassment and abuse everywhere you go. To have to worry every time you put on clothes and makeup what kind of signals you are sending, and to be on guard constantly lest they be misinterpreted. Men don't have to do this on a daily basis, so they have no frame of reference to even imagine what it is like to deal with it just about every time you leave your home. And sometimes when you are inside your home.
> 
> ...


Look guys, some of you write what @Holdingontoit wrote here. It is a good try at understanding what is going on. 

But it does not work that way. I am not going to try and explain all of it, but you cannot be too chicken **** to leave and find a woman that is attracted to you. For some it is too late, for others it is not. 

Women, want to have sex, just like men do. They want to be taken and they want to feel desired. 

I don't know where some of you guys learned some of the things that you think, but find a new source of information.


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

BluesPower said:


> It does not work that way for me


Exactly. Which is why you do not understand how it happens that way for us.



> But it does not work that way.


For you. for some of us, it works exactly that way.



> I am not going to try and explain all of it, but you cannot be too chicken **** to leave and find a woman that is attracted to you.


We can and we are. We would be better off if we were not. But if wishes were fishes . . . .



> Women, want to have sex, just like men do.


Some (maybe many, maybe most) women. By some men. Very few by me. And yes, I am loo weak and lazy and afraid to try to change that. Knowing that I am likely to remain just as weak and lazy and afraid if I got divorced, I stay. And let us be honest, do you disagree with me that if some poor women is going to have the misfortune to be married to weak, lazy and terrified me, then the woman who most deserves that honor is my current wife?



> They want to be taken


Some (maybe many, maybe most) women. By some men. Two problems with this one. 
First, an incredibly tiny percentage want to be taken by me. And an even smaller percentage remain in that group after the first session. 
Second, I am psychologically unable to "take" a woman by force. Literally cannot do it. Even if she begs me to. The one time in my life when I went to a bar while on vacation with friends (before marriage) and picked up a woman, we went to her room and got some blankets and headed down to the beach. We started foreplay. After a while she asked me to spank her. I playfully spanked her a few times. She kept asking me to hit her harder. Eventually, we got to the point that she wanted me to spank her harder than I was willing to strike a woman. I told her that was as far as I was willing to go. She said "you college boys are all the same, such wimps" and she got up and left. I was shell shocked. If a woman wants to be "taken" then she needs to find a different man than me.



> and they want to feel desired.


Well, heck, even my wife wants to feel desired by me. And I do desire her. I just won't give her the payoff of displaying my desire. I tell her she is beautiful and I wolf whistle at her when she gets undressed in front of me. Which she does far more often now that we are sexless than she ever did while I was engage in the futile pursuit of sex. And she smiles at my compliments far more than she did when I was chasing her and she felt the statements were just "lines" trying to get her to consent to sex.

But she knows at some level that there is something wrong. Because we never have sex. I never even try to have sex. I hardly ever get hard when we spoon. And on the very rare occasions when I get aroused and allow her to fondle me, I always stop her and thank her and get up and leave the room before it gets serious. But she never asks why I stopped her. And she never tries to get me back into bed. And she never complains about the lack of sex. So I know I am making the right choice to never have sex with her.

I also know I am making the wrong choice to stay with her. But I have accepted that about myself. That is probably the part you cannot understand. How I can know I am making the wrong choice and still accept it. God willing, you will never understand. God willing, you will never have such a range of negative experiences over such a long period of time that you would even consider accepting this. I am not worried you ever will. You would never allow such a bad situation to continue for so long. I admire you. But I have zero motivation to become more like you.



> I don't know where some of you guys learned some of the things that you think, but find a new source of information.


I am not saying you are wrong. You are correct. We need to be braver and more forceful and more willing to overcome defeat and strive relentlessly for a better outcome. That would lead to a better outcome for us sexually. You are exactly correct.

But some of us are simply unwilling to pay the price and invest the effort and endure the hardship of doing the work of trying to get to a better place. You will never understand. This is not about having a lack of information. This is about having a lack of will. We don't need to be educated further. We need to become different people. And some of us refuse to undergo the transformation. Even if we know we would like the new person more than we like the person we currently are. You will never hate yourself enough to know what it is like to WANT to remain less happy and less successful. We don't need more information. We need intensive therapy and maybe electroshock. Precious few of us will choose that path.


----------



## anonmd (Oct 23, 2014)

BluesPower said:


> You are either new or just came back, I have been though this before...
> 
> I am 54, I was married for 26 years, raised 3 kids, have one Grandchild, I have never, dealt with duty sex, and I never will.
> 
> ...


No, not new. You have a blank profile.


----------



## blahfridge (Dec 6, 2014)

oldshirt said:


> I didn't forget anything.
> 
> I just don't see that that changes any of the questions I posed.
> 
> ...


"Don't want" and "don't like" implies that the LD partner finds the act of sex completely abhorrent. If that were the case, then yes, I would say that the couple should divorce rather than subject either party to that kind of trauma. But there are gradients of wanting and liking in all things, including sex. Most of the time, I think the LD partner doesn't actively find sex to be an awful experience, they just aren't that interested in it.

A loose analogy might be the H who really does not like the in-laws and doesn't want to visit them at all. He finds the twice weekly visits to be inconvenient, boring, and sometimes he is even secretly annoyed. But he goes anyhow because he knows it's important to his wife whom he loves and wants to please. 

In conversations about "duty sex" there seems to often be the assumption that it's all or nothing. It's rarely the case. Marriage is about compromise - sex is no different from any number of ways in which couples accommodate their partners, which is the case more than not. On the other hand, if a spouse finds that compromise to be a bridge too far, then they should divorce rather than seethe with resentment, or worse, cheat.


----------



## aine (Feb 15, 2014)

I think we all engage in some sort of duty sex at some point in our lives. It is not possible to be raring to go at exactly the same time as your partner all the time, except maybe when you first started dating and were young and horny. I find this table insightful. I would like to think I have never engaged in pity sex but in charity sex maybe.


----------



## In2thewoods (Jan 25, 2017)

I sadly, am the starfish in my situation. I don't mean to thread-jack, but this issue is not all about HD and LD. And it's just as much about ethics for the "starfish" as for the sexual aggressor. I desperately crave sex, though my drive is not overly high. We just haven't been having it much. I willing give him HJs/BJs/PIV sex but he knows he has to be clear that he wants it, I'm not just going to offer.

Our marriage (almost 18 years) has been rocky-- bad communication, he has rage outbursts, binge drinks, and rarely worries about clearing the air afterward... He's always said "if you have a problem with how things went down last night, you come to me. How am I supposed to read your mind?" So I get put in the position of framing the problem and asking for an apology -- at which point he feels attacked and makes some straw man argument about who said exactly what to negate the validity of my overall request. Yes, he shouldn't have to read my mind. But an adult male should know that screaming, swearing, and throwing things is not acceptable and perhaps he should apologize-- particularly since he's rarely black-out drunk, so he remembers what he did. 

I've asked for couples counseling. He went to IC for a few years, this is what has reduced the frequency of incidents.
He is not interested in more counseling. He says he's too busy(in fairness, he is very busy).

The drinking and rages are much less frequent than they were 5 years ago. But they are still present... I've told him repeatedly I can't trust my emotions with him. He freaks out/gets cold too unpredictably. No emotional connection = me not attracted. I've been telling him for years. I have virtually no respect for him, though he is a good father and a good provider. I will not leave him (religious reasons/keeping the family together/ too expensive to live apart).

Sex is down to once or twice a month. He doesn't want to beg. When things are good between us, sex is pretty good. The good times are still there, I just don't think of him sexually anymore. I just don't trust him and it's really hard to make your body interested when I know he could change from Jekyll to Hyde and offer no apologies. A good couple of days does not overcome years of verbal abuse. Yes, I struggle with bitterness, but how fast is a starfish supposed bounce back to lovey-dovey-lets-get-it-on? I haven't said out loud "I love you, but I'm not in love with you", but that's where I am.

So somebody, help women like me on this thread out -- I can't leave, I know he's unhappy but he won't change. The starfish mentality didn't come out of laziness, weight gain, LD, hormone problems, PTSD, child birth, overworked schedule, or me having an affair. Even if he did change, my trust is so flimsy it would take a long time to get my desire for him back. Its not all about HD and LD -- some of it is about long-standing issues that are unresolved. Seriously, do I stop offering the starfish option and guarantee he eventually cheats? Or do I paste on a smile and negligee and give him such good sex that he WANTS to apologize?


----------



## BluesPower (Mar 27, 2018)

In2thewoods said:


> I sadly, am the starfish in my situation. I don't mean to thread-jack, but this issue is not all about HD and LD. And it's just as much about ethics for the "starfish" as for the sexual aggressor. I desperately crave sex, though my drive is not overly high. We just haven't been having it much. I willing give him HJs/BJs/PIV sex but he knows he has to be clear that he wants it, I'm not just going to offer.
> 
> Our marriage (almost 18 years) has been rocky-- bad communication, he has rage outbursts, binge drinks, and rarely worries about clearing the air afterward... He's always said "if you have a problem with how things went down last night, you come to me. How am I supposed to read your mind?" So I get put in the position of framing the problem and asking for an apology -- at which point he feels attacked and makes some straw man argument about who said exactly what to negate the validity of my overall request. Yes, he shouldn't have to read my mind. But an adult male should know that screaming, swearing, and throwing things is not acceptable and perhaps he should apologize-- particularly since he's rarely black-out drunk, so he remembers what he did.
> 
> ...


The question is "WHY" can't you leave? Why? 

You realize that some of his behavior is abusive. Just because he is not beating the crap out of you does not mean that he is NOT abusive. 

Why stay in something like this???


----------



## In Absentia (Aug 21, 2012)

BluesPower said:


> The question is "WHY" can't you leave? Why?
> 
> You realize that some of his behavior is abusive. Just because he is not beating the crap out of you does not mean that he is NOT abusive.
> 
> Why stay in something like this???


Well, she is been abusive towards him as well. By staying and not leaving him. It's a different type, but still damaging. She doesn't love him, she is not attracted to him, but she is afraid he is going to cheat if she doesn't give him starfish sex? WTF? I don't get it...


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

In Absentia said:


> Well, she is been abusive towards him as well. By staying and not leaving him. It's a different type, but still damaging. She doesn't love him, she is not attracted to him, but she is afraid he is going to cheat if she doesn't give him starfish sex? WTF? I don't get it...


Those of you saying this is not an ethical issue, Read this above ^^^^^ in regards to @In2thewoods post

This is what I am talking about and why I think it *IS* an ethical issue.

In2thewoods is not attracted to him, does not desire him, is not comfortable with him, does not actually want to have romantic/sexual relations with him...

....yet continues to engage in sex with him to keep him from finding someone else.

How does this not pose ethical considerations????

He is having her do something she does not want to do (we can probably assume he knows she's not liking it). 

And she is engaging in an activity she doesn't like and presumably disappointing and frustrating him as well, in an attempt to keep him from finding someone that will want him. 

How does this not pose ethical issues??


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

oldshirt said:


> Those of you saying this is not an ethical issue, Read this above ^^^^^ in regards to @In2thewoods post
> 
> This is what I am talking about and why I think it *IS* an ethical issue.
> 
> ...


Ethically, I don't think the receiver of such an arrangement has any ethical responsibility to the provider of that situation. He may have an ethical responsibility to himself via his own level of self respect. 

But as to the spouse, the spouse is doing exactly what she wants. She is providing enough sex to keep him from looking elsewhere. Since her prime desire is to keep him from looking elsewhere, she is doing what it takes to get what she wants. That she may not enjoy how she does it is irrelevant to the larger question which she is pursuing the best way she knows how. 

I want a new truck. I don't want to pay for it. Is it unethical for the dealer to take my money when he delivers me a new truck? Of course not. I can't claim that there is some sort of ethical breach because I want what I want and I can't get it without giving something of my own in the process.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

They have a bad relationship and are both dissatisfied and frustrated and basically don't like each other.

She openly admits she is not in love with him and is only allowing him to masturbate with her body (my term, not hers) so he doesn't get it somewhere else.
(In other words, she is doing something she doesn't like so he doesn't do it with someone who does want to be with him)

We only have her side of the story, but I think we can infer from her testimony that he doesn't like her all that much either and that he is also dissatisfied and frustrated. 

So we have two miserable people, having bad sex that is not pleasing anyone to keep from finding people that they would be happier and better off with. 

Make all the car dealership analogies that you want, but this just seems wrong on all levels to me.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

oldshirt said:


> They have a bad relationship and are both dissatisfied and frustrated and basically don't like each other.
> 
> She openly admits she is not in love with him and is only allowing him to masturbate with her body (my term, not hers) so he doesn't get it somewhere else.
> (In other words, she is doing something she doesn't like so he doesn't do it with someone who does want to be with him)
> ...


I agree it's all kinds of wrong... at least for you or me. But who are we to say that it's wrong for them. If him not leaving is more important to her than her not having sex, then in the end, she is doing exactly what she thinks she needs to do to get what she wants. She has done the cost-benefit analysis for herself and is acting accordingly. You think it's sad. I think it's sad. Maybe she thinks it's sad. But he has no moral or ethical obligation to turn down her offer since she is making it of her own free will based on her chosen criteria. 

If she's giving him sex just to keep him from straying, and he accepts under those terms, he has no moral obligation to her beyond his sexual fidelity. 

Both are free to dissolve the union if either of them decides the current tradeoff in agreement is no longer worth it. Therefore, there is no ethical dilemma. Just a sad state of affairs that is within each of their powers to rectify should they choose to realign their personal priorities. But so long as they agree that what they are trading meets their priorities, ethics is not an issue.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

I agree that no one has the right to intervene in their "arrangment" and if each of them is aware of the conditions and they are each in agreement that it is the lesser of other evils and they choose to continue - that is their business.

......but I still think tere are ethical issues at play here and that it is worthy of ethical discussion. 

I do see it as an ethical dilema as they are choosing between two fundamentally detrimental and unwanted options.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

oldshirt said:


> I agree that no one has the right to intervene in their "arrangment" and if each of them is aware of the conditions and they are each in agreement that it is the lesser of other evils and they choose to continue - that is their business.
> 
> ......but I still think tere are ethical issues at play here and that it is worthy of ethical discussion.
> 
> I do see it as an ethical dilema as they are choosing between two fundamentally detrimental and unwanted options.


But not so unwanted so as to drive them to seek a third option. Their choice. To me that's outside the bounds of ethics. It's only an ethical situation if they are somehow compelling the other to accept the arrangement by force, coercion, or through deceit. All indications are that they are up front about what they are doing, both are operating with full knowledge, and either has the option of dissolving the union if they ultimately decide that's what's best for them. 

Sad or even unhealthy is not unethical so long as the choice is made of free will in the presence of equal information. 

I think we all agree that such a situation is not a good one and should be rectified if at all possible. Whether or not we call that "ethical" is really just a semantic side show. If we call it an ethical situation and that helps it get resolved, I'm all for it.


----------



## In Absentia (Aug 21, 2012)

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> But not so unwanted so as to drive them to seek a third option. Their choice. To me that's outside the bounds of ethics. It's only an ethical situation if they are somehow compelling the other to accept the arrangement by force, coercion, or *through deceit*.



Well, it is deceit. She doesn't love him and she is keeping him there with starfish sex for god knows what reason. She is deceiving him. Same as my wife. But at least the sex was good (when it happened)... :grin2:


----------



## Laurentium (May 21, 2017)

My view: it is an ethical question. And often ethical questions are not black and white. That's what makes the hard questions hard. Making analogies to more clear-cut situations doesn't help. There are usually shades. 

If I were evaluating this situation as to whether it was abuse, it would depend a lot on the balance of power in the situation, or to put it another way, the possible consequences for the LD person if they leave. 

If there are none beyond the usual pain of a breakup, it's not an ethical problem. 
If there are minor children involved and a breakup is going to hurt them, that makes it harder. 
If the LD partner is going to be destitute if they break up, that's a factor.
If the LD partner justifiably fears that if they split, the HD partner will stalk them or become violent, that's a big factor.
Likewise if the LD partner would be likely to be deported to a place where they might expect harm. 

These are hypotheticals, but the more "I have no realistic option to leave" pressure on the LD partner, the more it looks like an ethical problem for the HD partner to "accept" sex from the LD. At the lowest end of this scale, as people have said, it's a consensual sexual act between two adults, perhaps motivated by kindness.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

In Absentia said:


> Well, it is deceit. She doesn't love him and she is keeping him there with starfish sex for god knows what reason. She is deceiving him. Same as my wife. But at least the sex was good (when it happened)... :grin2:


But you know it is starfish sex so you are not deceived.


----------



## In Absentia (Aug 21, 2012)

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> But you know it is starfish sex so you are not deceived.


She is keeping him in the marriage by deceit because she doesn't love him and, instead of telling him, she gives him starfish sex so he doesn't stray. Not sure why...


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> But you know it is starfish sex so you are not deceived.


But if you know that it is starfish sex, then you are knowingly doing something to them that you know they do not want to do. 

And if you are knowingly screwing them because they fear you will leave them destitute if they don't, then it is still duress and coercion even if they have agreed to it. 

It's still duress.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

In Absentia said:


> She is keeping him in the marriage by deceit because she doesn't love him and, instead of telling him, she gives him starfish sex so he doesn't stray. Not sure why...


That is one possibility. 

But for all we know, he knows that it is starfish sex and knows that she doesn't love or desire him and knows she is only doing it for religious reasons and to keep the kids under one roof, but he is doing it anyway. 

Either way, I still see some ethical concerns here.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

oldshirt said:


> But if you know that it is starfish sex, then you are knowingly doing something to them that you know they do not want to do.
> 
> And if you are knowingly screwing them because they fear you will leave them destitute if they don't, then it is still duress and coercion even if they have agreed to it.
> 
> It's still duress.


Not at all. Duress is when you leave someone little or no choice. Wife here has not been denied choice at all. She gives starfish sex because she _wants _ to keep him. Ergo, she is getting what she wants.


----------



## Mr. Nail (Apr 26, 2011)

oldshirt said:


> But if you know that it is starfish sex, then you are knowingly doing something to them that you know they do not want to do.
> 
> And if you are knowingly screwing them because they fear you will leave them destitute if they don't, then it is still duress and coercion even if they have agreed to it.
> 
> It's still duress.


He is ethically bound to aleve her fear? As long as she has fear she is acting under duress. How can he aleve her fear better than by accepting poor quality duty sex when she offers it? If he rejects these offers, will not her fear of abandonment and destitution increase? In what way can he remove the duress caused by her fears?

Then there is this other new idea. That whenever someone does something that they don't want to do they are under duress. This is obviously not true as we all daily choose to do things that we don't want to do. If not we would be my house cats who eat and sleep.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

oldshirt said:


> But if you know that it is starfish sex, then you are knowingly doing something to them *that you know they do not want to do*.
> 
> And if you are knowingly screwing them because they fear you will leave them destitute if they don't, then it is still duress and coercion even if they have agreed to it.
> 
> It's still duress.


What's the definition of 'do not want to do"?

My wife likes me to bring her a cup of tea in bed in the evening.

Do I *want* to bring it?

I *never *take a cup of tea upstairs if my wife isn't there.

I think I want to do it because it makes her happy and it's nothing for me to do it.

But, is it unethical for her to ask me for a cup of tea?


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Mr. Nail said:


> He is ethically bound to aleve her fear? As long as she has fear she is acting under duress. How can he aleve her fear better than by accepting poor quality duty sex when she offers it? If he rejects these offers, will not her fear of abandonment and destitution increase? In what way can he remove the duress caused by her fears?
> 
> *Then there is this other new idea. That whenever someone does something that they don't want to do they are under duress.* This is obviously not true as we all daily choose to do things that we don't want to do. If not we would be my house cats who eat and sleep.


Seems to speak to society at large these days as well.


----------



## personofinterest (Apr 6, 2018)

Like I said on the beginning....a back door implication of "rape."

At least own the passive aggressive condescension.


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

Buddy400 said:


> What's the definition of 'do not want to do"?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Every time I bring that tea upstairs, things tend to get a bit rapey....in a consensual non consensual kind of way. 
As Louis CK said, you should never rape anyone. Unless they really want you to, or something to that effect. 
It’s Tea time in UK. Where are the biscuits and mask....  


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

Mr. Nail said:


> Then there is this other new idea. That whenever someone does something that they don't want to do they are under duress. This is obviously not true as we all daily choose to do things that we don't want to do. If not we would be my house cats who eat and sleep.


I agree. Doing something unpleasant in order to get a desired reward is not duress. It is a choice.

The central point here is the use of the phrase "something they don't want to do". The way the "it is duress" side interprets that phrase, it means "something they don't want to do _*in isolation*_" or "_*all other things being equal*_". But few things in life are truly done in isolation and all other things are hardly ever equal. That to me carries the day. Something being unpleasant or undesirable in and of itself does not create duress. It is the immoral nature of the threatened consequences that make the difference.

If I threaten my wife that I will tie her up and force her to have sex with me against her will if she does not grant her consent, then she is under duress because my threatened consequences are immoral and unethical. But if I threaten my wife that I will divorce her unless she has sex with me once a week on the day of her choosing, and the law imposes a requirement that I support her financially after we divorce, then I see nothing immoral or unethical about giving her that choice. I can understand how someone else might think it is tacky or gross that I make the choice so explicit. But she has no right to force me to stay married to her, either. Divorce is easily available in most Western societies (but notably not in North Carolina). It is not stigmatized as it was in the past. She is free to divorce me if she prefers not to have sex with me. I am free to divorce her if she refuses. I do not see either of as as being immorally or unethically forced to make such a choice.

On the other hand, I am a licensed professional and my wife has easy recourse to court orders and wage garnishment to enforce court ordered support payments. I can imagine a situation where one spouse controls all the money in a manner that makes it difficult to enforce a judgment against them. In that case, after a long term marriage, a SAH spouse might feel compelled to consent on pain of being rendered impoverished. To me that cross over to the unethical side.

So in the end I guess I agree with @Laurentium. There are shades of grey. But to me the "divorce with each getting their fair share of the finances" does not implicate ethics or morality.


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

@oldshirt: I am honestly curious how you view the ethics of the other side of the "starfish sex" dilemma. Is it unethical for my wife to force me to face the choice of divorce or remaining celibate? If I choose to stay married and celibate, is it unethical for my wife to "accept" my offer of celibacy? Is she ethically compelled to divorce me so as to save me from voluntarily choosing to remain celibate? Or do you see that as a false equivalence because being "forced" to have starfish sex is so much worse and more damaging and more violative than being forced to remain celibate?


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

Holdingontoit said:


> @oldshirt: I am honestly curious how you view the ethics of the other side of the "starfish sex" dilemma. Is it unethical for my wife to force me to face the choice of divorce or remaining celibate? If I choose to stay married and celibate, is it unethical for my wife to "accept" my offer of celibacy? Is she ethically compelled to divorce me so as to save me from voluntarily choosing to remain celibate? Or do you see that as a false equivalence because being "forced" to have starfish sex is so much worse and more damaging and more violative than being forced to remain celibate?


My primary point in starting this thread was to foster discussion and hear some different perspectives and people's thoughts on the ethical considerations of duty/starfish sex.

There has been healthy debate on a number of sides as there usually are (and probably should be) when discussing any kind of ethics. 

My best answer to your questions is that I believe there would be some ethical factors that one would need to take into consideration any time one is contemplating divorce/remaining in a dysfunctional relationship/someone having to choose between two bad choices etc etc

So Do I think there would probably be some ethical factors to take into consideration? Yes. Always. We all weigh a myriad of ethical considerations with countless decisions throughout the day.

But beyond that, I don't know if my own personal preferences or how I would likely choose to handle that situation has any benefit to this discussion. 

My purpose of this thread is not to stand in judgement of what is and what is not ethical or what is right vs wrong. Or even what is more right or less wrong. But rather for people to discuss the ethical ramifications of said topic. 

I see it as an open-ended essay for which there is no "right" answer.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

.....but it is a good question(s) and yes I believe does contain some ethical considerations to be pondered.

I do think if someone has lost all attraction and desire for someone and they know that the other person innately wants to have love/sex life within a marriage - I do believe that bears some ethical considerations on the part if the partner no longer wanting the marital Sexlife as well as the person placed in the position of choosing between involuntary celibacy or divorce.


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

After all, that is the situation facing the LD when the HD chooses to refuse starfish sex. Now the couple is having no sex. If it was ethically wrong for the HD to take advantage of the LD's offer of starfish sex, isn't the shoe now on the other foot? Isn't the LD equally obliged to turn down the HD's offer of undesired celibacy?

I hope my wife never figures that out. I am hopeful that my 20+ years of accepting her offers of starfish sex inclines her to "return the favor" by accepting 20+ years of celibacy.


----------

